Talk:O Brother, Where Art Thou?/Archive 1

Similarities and Plot

Similarities section far too long, Plot section is far too short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.162.150 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fairfield Four

Three of the five Fairfield Four are in the film. Koyaanis Qatsi

what?

It was the fifth film on which the Coen Brothers worked now slated to be shot in Mississippi at a time of year when the foliage, grass, trees and bushes would be lush green.

that definitely needs some grammar work. (as in putting the entire sentence into one tense)

96th, huh?

"The song was so popular in Australia that it featured at number 96 in the Triple J's hottest 100 songs of 2003." LOL I wouldn't call number 96 on Australia's songs of 2003 "SO popular". I'm taking out this line if there are no objections. 66.171.140.215 02:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how many song were judged. If 101 songs, it wasnt popular. I 100000+ songs...pretty dang popular. I'm just saying. --Count Mall 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Other Film references

Where does O Brother Where Art Thou reference Star Wars? I've seen the film several times and cannot see a reference. Kel-nage 03:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed said claimed reference. Input was from repeated vandal. Kel-nage 03:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of references, what are the Oz references? Leibniz 15:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's in the KKK rally scene, where the klansmen are depicted like minions of the Wicked Witch of the West. Three of the protagonists jump out from behind a bush, overtake and put on the white hoods of some klansmen, and surreptitiously join in on the crowd chanting "OOO-EEE-OOO". There is a rather similar reference in one of the Lord of the Rings films.--Pharos 15:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What about Monty Python and the Holy Grail? The preists chant almost the same thing (then hit themselves with boards). Is that creidable? - E. H.

In MP and the HG the monks are chanting the Pie Jesu Domine of the Latin Mass. It does not sound anything like the OOO-EEE-OOO from either the Wizard of Oz or this movie. Fumblebruschi 20:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • The scene's playing on my TV now and, for what it's worth, the Klansmen are chanting, "Lo, hi, lo, hi, lo, hi, lo .... eenie-meenie-minie-mo." I kid you not. After the grand wizard sings and speaks and as Tommy is being marched to execution, they sing a wordless tune. Nevertheless, I agree that it is highly referential of the "Oz" scene. --Pergish1 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mac

While on the lamb from police, Babyface Nelson (played by Michael Badalucco), screams of his hatred of cows and begins to shoot the beasts. This part of the scene seems to be in direct response to a 1992 movie called Mac, written and directed by John John Turturro, during which the main character, Niccolo Vitelliac's brother played by Michael Badalucco, walks through a pasture gushing over his love and facination of cows.

Could be. It's mainly a reference to the slaughtering of the cattle of the Sun God in the Odyssey, though. Fumblebruschi 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good material at imdb.com

This page has a lot of interesting info about the film. Some of it might improve the Wikipedia article but I'd be wary of just copying & pasting (verifying & then paraphrasing would be good). Here's an Oz reference, for example: "The scene where Ulysses, Pete and Delmar come upon the KKK meeting is a reference to the scene in The Wizard of Oz (1939) when the Tin Man, Scarecrow and Lion sneak up on the Witch's castle. The chanting and formation marching of the Witch's guards are mimicked by the KKK members. Infiltration is achieved in both films by overpowering three guards and KKK members respectively and donning their garb." --Ds13 05:26, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I remember the "ooo-eee-ooo-eee" chant by the guard now. Leibniz 12:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, not all the "trivia" on the IMDB page is to be trusted:

"Odysseus means "man who is in constant pain and sorrow".

According to Odysseus, that etymology is bollocks.

---Leibniz 19:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it does mean "man of wrath" according to Homer, so you can just about see where they're coming from... Kel-nage 19:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the word "Odysseus" is derived from odýssomai it would certainly mean something like "man of wrath". If it, on the other hand, is connected to the verb odýromai, it would translate: "a man of mourning, complaining". I am a bit hesitant in accepting the derivation from οδηγός, as mentioned in Odysseus, but I will look into when I have some time to spare. --Kappel 21:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

perhaps someone should note in the soggy bottom boy's/man of constant sorrow section that one of the lyrics in the song is "I bid farewell to old Kentucky, the place where I was born and raised"; emphasising on Kentucky, Clooney himself was born and raised in (Northern) Kentucky. It's unknown if this is was intentional, or if it just fit because of the region of the film and era. Personally, I couldn't imagine it not being intentional. I would edit this in myself, but cannot find a way to word it elegantly. 70.35.222.158 07:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Man of Constant Sorrow" is much older than Clooney himself, first recorded in 1913 by Dick Burnett, a Kentucky fiddler.216.186.10.1 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tommy Johnson

I changed the part "musicians clearly modeled after the blues singer Robert Johnson" to "musicians clearly modeled after the blues singer Tommy Johnson" as there was a real life blues singer of note named Tommy Johnson who claimed to have sold his soul to the devil, unlike Robert Johnson, who never actually claimed to make a Faustian deal.

---

--I think that the reference in the film was to Robert Johnson. I had heard the story about Robert Johnson before the movie. Robert Johnson was certainly an inventive genius for guitar technique. He was also reportedly paranoid about others trying to copy his techniques. He may have invented the story to mess with the minds of those people.

You may want to take a look at this site Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil in Rosedale, Mississippi

--Here is the first paragraph from the site:

"Last month, while I was driving down the Mississippi River on a magazine assignment, I had a curious experience in Rosedale, Mississippi. As I was eating lunch in a place called Leo's Market, a waitress mentioned that Rosedale is the place where the legendary bluesman Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil in exchange for musical genius (an event alluded to in -- among other places -- the Cohen brothers' movie Oh Brother, Where Art Thou). As if to prove it, the waitress handed me a wrinkled, typewritten transcription of a "vision" about Johnson's fateful moment that had appeared to bluesman Henry Goodman as he was traveling the road from Rosedale to Anguila. For the sake of posterity (and because I have never seen it elsewhere), I am publishing Goodman's "vision" in full below, as well as a postscript by Rosedale's Crossroads Blues Society."

--As he states, the transcript of his "vision" can be found at this site.

72.147.42.94 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)H.E. Hall

--I am pretty sure that the film refers to Robert Johnson because the film was set in 1937 the last year of Robert Johnson's life. I'd wager that the film just uses "Tommy" to change the name for theatrical purposes. I mean, who ever heard of Tommy Johnson? True enough there was a Tommy Johnson who was older than Robert Johnson, but the character in the film actually fits the age of Robert, who was about 26 at the time. Robert Johnson is well known as the grandfather of Rock and Roll. His influence directly affected how blues and later, rock and roll music was crafted for decades. He influenced Eric Clapton, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles and dozens of other artists. For the film makers to use Robert Johnson in this film would fit alot better because of Robert Johnson's legendary status while using Tommy Johnson would be of little notice. While it is true that Robert Johnson never claimed to have sold his soul to the devil, that very fact is what makes it more of a "legend". It is more likely that Tommy Johnson bragged about selling his soul to the devil because he wanted to capitalize on the late Robert Johnson's belated fame. Real legends never brag.

Dmoorefield68 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Any pre-war blues enthusiast will know Tommy Johnson's name, Robert Johnson lifted his persona among other things not from Tommy Johnson, but from Peetie Wheatstraw who was known in his time as "The Devils son in law" and "The High Sheriff from hell". For some reason people always make the connection between the both Robert & Tommy Johnson because they have the same last names. Tommy Johnson wasen't even recording in the 1930's so it can be debated as to whether he was even still present in the music scene. Much had changed through the depression, many of the stars of the 1920's were now somewhat redundant. To be honest age wise Chris Thomas King in 2000 was closer to Tommy Johnsons age by 1937 than Robert johnson's. So the age is irrelivent as far as im concerned. The general feel I got is that the "Tommy Johnson" character is no more than a figure head representing a generic "Blues man" through various sterotypes.

Cooljack2 22:08, 29 Nov 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence that the "sold my soul to the devil" reflect authentic west African belifs in Papa Legba, and the story was originally attributed to Tommy Johnson, not Robert Johnson. The film actually follows the Legba characterization quite closely.Pustelnik (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the article now Tommy Johnson MEANS Tommy Johnson.Ishmaelblues (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The lead-guitarist character (Tommy) of the Soggy Bottom Boys is an intended reference to 
Delta Blues artist Tommy Johnson, who claimed that he sold his soul to the devil in return
for being able to play the guitar. T-Bone Burnett has explained that the character was not meant
to represent Robert Johnson.[18] rather, the character, portrayed by blues/rap artist
Chris Thomas King, is probably moreover a reference to Tommy Johnson, who was actually 
claimed to have sold his soul to the devil.

The T-Bone Burnett citation above (18) reads:

There was a Tommy Johnson whose family thought he sold his soul to the devil because he didn’t know how to play guitar, then he went away for a little while, and when he came back he was a muthafucka guitar player. I’m not sure, but I think that legend may have gotten attached to Robert Johnson later.

So what? The fact is that most people associate the legend with Robert Johnson whether or not it's (also) true of a real-life Tommy Johnson. The underlying language of movies is based on common understandings (or common misunderstandings) and clichés because it's difficult to use annotations or footnotes. The fact is that the movie introduces the character Tommy Johnson by making sure with a very dramatic overhead shot that everyone knows that the others characters are meeting him at a crossroad.

With all due respect to Mr. Burnett, what he speculates about what the Coen Brothers intended is meaningless, and what they say is not being cited. I think this paragraph should be removed from the article.

AlvinMGO (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

T-Bone Burnett worked on the film, he is an offical source, more accuratly he worked on the music, the character is named tommy, to asociate him wrongly with robery would be an anachronism. Ishmaelblues (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that that suggests that ANYONE who worked on the film is an offical [sic] source. Mr. Burnett can only tell us, officially, what his contributions to the film entailed, not what the directors intended. And I don't understand what the rest of your comment means. -AlvinMGO (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry i typed robery instead of robert. So here is the situation; the character's name is tommy johnson, and he claimed to have sold his soul to the devil (something only the real tommy johnson claimed to have done), Mr.Burnett was in charge of the music in the film says the character is based on the real tommy johnson. Until the early 1960's tommy (and also Lonnie) Johnson were without a doubt the more famous Johnson. However, today people see "tommy Johnson" Delta bluesman and assume Robert, this is the anachronism. To assume robert, or anthing else, dispite these three key facts is ignoring the sources and using original research, however, anon. IPs will continue to change it just because they know no better, which is a pain in the butt, but what can you do. Ishmaelblues (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just changed this to mention BOTH men, and included a reference that discusses the "debate" and notes what most bluse scholars have concluded. The link is from some guy's master's thesis at a university. I can find another if that is not sufficient; I saw tons while I was searching. Millahnna (mouse)talk 07:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Some more sources for the Tommy/Robert issue (not listing the one I've already added to the article). I'm not sure if any of these are considered reliable for our purposes (I'm pretty sure at least two of them are NOT by wiki standards) but here they are:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OBrotherWhereArtThou
http://www.frostillustrated.com/full.php?sid=7109

Some google books hits (please not that several biographies about Robert have even gone on to say that the character was based on Tommy, not Robert:
Robert Johnson, mythmaking, and contemporary American culture
All music guide to the blues
Escaping the delta:Robert Johnson & the Invention of the Blues
Take a Walk on the Dark Side: Rock and Roll Myths, Legends, and Curses
Millahnna (mouse)talk 10:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not gonna change it back, but actually I'm 90 percent sure this is a reference to Robert Johnson, not Tommy. The "smoking gun", so to speak, is the whole crossroads bit. That is an obvious reference to Robert Johnson's "Crossroad Blues", one of his most famous songs, which remains extremely famous to this day because a cover version of it by Cream was a huge hit in the late 1960s. 66.158.60.231 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

the KKK SCENE

in the scene that happens in which some people of black heritage are sentenced to death without any meaning, does anyone get killed? It's just i'm very open to everyone's opinions, but this is too much for me, and I just can't bring myself to watch it, or speak its name. so does anyone get killed? Or do they escape?

Nobody dies in the KKK scene. Actually, I forgot, one of the members dies. The guitarist and the trio escape unharmed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they rescue the guitarist by causing a diversion where they throw the Confederate flag, shouting "Can't let it touch the ground!" The Klansmen all scramble to catch it, and the Cyclops catches it in the nick of time. But while they were distracted, the trio knock over the giant burning cross, and it crashes down on the assembled Klansmen. (Loud cheers all around) The High Wizard or whatever their leader was called escapes, but I'd assume that the Cyclops and most of the other Klansmen were killed or at least badly burned up. (I don't think we see the Cyclops for the rest of the movie, but I haven't seen it in years, so I might be mistaken) 142.161.204.112 23:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct... the only casualties are klansmen. Yay!!! PurpleChez (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Another "Odyssey" Parallel?

Can we consider the second "Soggy Bottom Boys" scene another parallel to the Odyssey? In the poem, Athena does disguise Odysseus to appear older so none will recognize him, and Everett does wear a huge fake beard which seems to fool nearly everyone until he tugs it down a few inches. Rituro 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it says: •In the movie, Ulysses meets an old and blind prophet. In the Odyssey, Odysseus goes to the underworld to seek the advice of Tiresias, an old and blind prophet, who also tells him that his travels will not be over until he takes an oar and walks so far inland that someone asks him why he carries a winnowing-fan (the point of doing this is to bring knowledge of the sea to people who did not previously know Poseidon, thereby "making up" for his mistakes). Upon doing this, he is also to make a sacrifice to Poseidon. This is possibly mirrored in the movie by Ulysses' being given an equally seemingly impossible task -- to find one ring at the bottom of a lake.

Tommy

I changed "Robert Johnson" to "Tommy Johnson," as someone above had recommended, and I added Chris Thomas King, who played Tommy, to the cast list.–Clpalmore

I added a parenthetical reference to Chris Thomas King when the first mention of him is made in the plot summary, to match the other parenthetical actor names (Clooney, Turturro, Nelson) in the first paragraph. - Joepeartree 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting sources for theories (no original research!)

There are many reasonable theories and speculations presented in the "Parallels with the Odyssey" section. However, Wikipedia doesn't permit us to introduce new theories or ideas. I apologize if these are old, published theories. That's easy to fix with some citations though. But if these theories can't be verified in a reputable publication, then I think we need to get rid of some or all of them. Thoughts? --Ds13 18:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those times when finding sources can be a real difficulty. The filmmakers are silent about what they did or did not intend as direct references to the poem; however, many people searching out info online about the movie are looking for Odyssey parallels, and to remove that information from the article seems a shame. Take, for example, the one I recently added; it's widely accessible knowledge that pouring oil over the head is a common way to anoint kings (and indeed the word "anoint" comes from this practice); did the filmmakers intend Ulysses's hair oil to be a reference to Odysseus's kingship? We have no way of knowing, and I've seen this theory on message boards and the like, but are they really citeable? It's a thorny problem with this article. - dharmabum 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree — it's a thorny problem and it's a shame to lose content, but if the content looks like original research that hasn't been put together and published before at a reputable source, then Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Certainly if a fan site had an ongoing discussion of what the filmmakers had in mind and what certain scenes might represent, then we could link to that site but I think citing even one fan site isn't going to qualify as reputable source for WP's purposes. I enjoyed the movie so I'd love to see a good article on it, but not if it means treading below encyclopedic standards.

A constructive alternative to just deleting unsourced content would be to put it all into a Wikipedia:To-do list here in the talk pages and as verifiable sources are found for these theories, they can be moved with citation to the article page. Just a thought. --Ds13 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is where the line between Wikipedia and a print encyclopedia blur; you can't look to Britannica for good parallels between the film and "The Odyssey", but it's impossible to find sources for all of these; some may be often discussed in citeable publications (you can certainly find many sourced film reviews, critiques etc. on the parallel between John Goodman's character and Polyphemos or the washer women as the Sirens), some may not be (the possible connection of washer women by the river to Finnegans Wake or the slaughter of the cows compared to the slaughter of the Oxen of Helios). The sticking point is that these additions are rarely true original research, but the passing along of material from discussion groups, film and literary societies, and the like.

I hate to see any useful information get moved to the talk page in a case like this, since only a very small percentage of WP browsers ever look at the talk pages. Whether the Coens intended it or not or whether there's a source or not, the fact that a bovine slaughter played a role in both the film and the poem is of interest. Maybe an (admittedly imperfect) solution would be to place the {{unsourced}}, or even the {{OR}} tag on the section without removing the material entirely. It makes it clear that this information is not 100% confirmed or sourced, it might draw editors who watch those categories to try to improve the sourcing, but it still leaves the information there with a caveat to casual browsers that can inspire debate and discussion. - dharmabum 09:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the article some more, I think part of the problem can be solved by some simple wording. Consider the difference between this statement (currently in the article with a cite-needed tag):

At one point George Nelson shoots at a herd of cattle. This may be a reference to a scene in the book where Odysseus and his fellow travelers slaughter the cows of the sun god Helios.

And this one I just composed:

George Nelson shoots at a herd of cattle, killing several. In the poem, Odysseus's men slaughter a herd of oxen belonging to the sun god Helios.

One directly implies a reference; the other points out two events in the poem and film which simply happened. It leaves the reader to form their own conclusion. I'll work on changing entries under the section to this kind of relationship when I get the time. - dharmabum 10:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this some thought. I think your wording is an improvement, since at least it keeps the individual observations verifiable, which is critical. However, presenting them in a "Parallels" section means we are telling the reader that these two things actually are parallel or are interpreted to be parallel according to one or more reliable sources, which requires verifiability at that level also.

Verifiability is a hard policy on WP, but what makes a "reliable source" is only a guideline. Since we both agree that the origin of one of these theories cannot be WP itself, perhaps all we need to do is start tagging each claimed parallel with the most reliable offline or online review or critic or analysis we can find in <ref></ref> tags (with a <references/> section near the end) and refine and improve as we go. If we don't raise this bar, we'll encourage future dumping of original and half-cocked theories here without setting an example of what to aim for. --Ds13 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations are scarce at best throughout this article. Why have we decided to enforce the OR for these myriad and useful theories, which are clearly only that? As a teacher, these parallels are excellent starting points to lead students toward further research, especially given that WP is not reputable enough to cite in their work. So given WP's status as a low-threshhold research, why have we removed the material wholesale? Why did we not try the solutions tendered above? Because it was too much work to consider the value of each parallel alone? 01:17, 18 September 2007

Lingering questions regarding character of U.E. McGill

I have two lingering questions about the character of Ulysses Everett McGill: 1. Why does he display a heightened fear of fire? ("I hate fire!!!") 2. Why does he have seven daughters? (Odysseus had one son)

The fire thing might be a reference to his other namesake. Everett McGill was the lead actor in the Quest for Fire movie, which naturally is about him and Ron Perlman getting fire for their Neanderthal tribe. Kniobo (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the daughters, but Clooney states in an interview on the Special Edition DVD, that this is a reference to The Wizard of Oz: He's the scarecrow. Tilberg (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Historical claims

Put in some pretty obvious corrections to claims about "never having read the Odyssey". The joke here is on the critics for believing them [again] (cf. Fargo). --Fremsley 23:27, 28 July 2006(UTC).

Parallels to the Odyssey

This section is far, far too long, and, as per the above comment, poorly sourced. Also, if I remember my Wiki policy correctly, paragraph style is preferable to bullet point style.

I would like to cut the section down, which would involve removing redundant info and less important parallels. What references to people feel are less important, and could be cut? [[Use

Go for it. See the Requesting sources... debate above. While analysys of the parellels is interesting, it does violate WP rules on sources and verifiability. Someone should make an independant website and provide a link from the article to keep this infomation available. It doesn't belong on WP. Ashmoo 0iting" like Odysseus' dog, especially if the pomade already symbolizes Odysseus' hubris? And the film does not begin in media res. The story begins when the trio escapes prison, and that's where the movie begins; how they got to be prisoners is irrelevant and never explained. Both Pete's cousin and Pappy O'Daniel represent Menelaus? Both the blind recordist and Homer Stokes represent Homer? --Tysto 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

hi whats up

Some are silly, and the pomade is a good example. But the film does indeed begin in medias res. We are, in fact, told why the characters are in prison (McGill for practicing law without a license, Delmer for knocking over that Piggly Wiggly over in Yazoo.). Their crimes are not at all irrelevant. McGill's impersonating a lawyer makes sense of his wife's and children's frequent condemnation for not being bona fide. The right thing to do, folks, is remove the least cogent among the parallels, but that's harder than pitching the whole stack. Users are smart enough that if we flag the parallels section as heavily swayed by conjecture, they will know how to treat this material and will not be confused or misled. 01:31, 18 September, 2007

I think that all of these are poorly poorly backed up nothing is explained and somewhat too short. There needs to be more explinations rather then just listings. It doesn't help when you just say this relates to this or this represents this and you don't explain why.--Ravenscam 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help whom, and for what purpose? These parallels are very helpful for readers looking for hand-holds into beginning their own analyses. So just because the parallels hold no value to you doesn't mean they hold no value. 01:22, 18 September, 2007

Eye witness

I was the "eye witness" to one of O'Daniel's campaign stops. Someone tagged it with "citation needed." What can I say? There probably were not a lot of reporters on the Huntsville, Texas court house square that night. It was either '56 or '58, and O'Daniel was trying to regain the governorship that he had won a couple of times 15 years earlier. Is going to a campaign rally with your parents at age 9 or 11 "original research"? You might check the Huntsville Item newspaper if it's important -- which it's not.

Pappy, a.k.a. "Dubya Leo", and his band rode in on a fire truck. He said he was going to "put out the fire in Austin." My dad said that in earlier years he had carried a broom, promising to "clean house in Austin." They played the campaign song, "I Like Country Music," which contains the lyric "Please pass the biscuits, Pappy." Astonishingly, I remember the words and melody to this day, 50 years later.

Jive Dadson 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Readability

This article, particularly the similarities section, needs to be examined for clarity and readability. In places it references an event twice, such the two mentions of the cyclops, and the two mentions of Everett's first name being Ulysses. Perhaps they could be merged together or ordered differently, such as in order of appearance in the film. Right now everything looks like it was just thrown onto the page.

Fair use rationale for Image:VA - Oh Brother.jpg

Image:VA - Oh Brother.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Arktabula, Mississippi

Arktabula, Mississippi is a real place, yet it's also a name with punning significance for the storyline of O Brother, Where Art Thou. It is seen in a newspaper in the film. I wonder if there is any connection with the Odyssey? In any case, I noticed this cryptic detail and wanted to document it, and I wonder if there is an appropriate place to do so in the Wikipedia article on this film.

ark + tabula, as in tabula rasa ("blank slate")

A flood at the end of the movie saves our heroes by wiping out the lynch posse that's about to murder them. It also wipes out the landscape, but floating furniture saves not only our characters, but also a cow. There's your ark. Since the flood wipes out the old family home of the main character, as well as the threat to the heroes' lives represented by agents of the law, the flood wipes the slate clean. There's your tabula rasa. Moreover, the "clean slate" is mentioned earlier in the film when one character accepts Christ, in a baptism, and explains all his sins are forgiven. He talks one of his cohorts into baptism, too, so both of those mens' sins are "washed away". The main character's sins, though, don't get washed away until the flood at the end of the movie. The flood seems to come in answer to a prayer.

Anyway, it's a beautifully cryptic word that happens to be a real place. I couldn't find any reference elsewhere to this, and I think I might be the first person to document this on the Internet. I just don't know where to fit it in to the facts about the film.--Mooncaine 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you are the first person to have noticed this, there's not really a place for it in the article. I believe that would be considered "original research," which is frowned upon. See WP:OR. Joyous! | Talk 11:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR and comparisions to classic texts

Right now there is a lengthy section that is continuously reinserted by 208.107.12.237. It clearly constitutes WP:OR as it stands. There has been discussion about finding sources for some of these comparisons. The block of comparisons is linked here. This is a very long section that is completely without citation. This cannot stay in as it stands but I am sure there are citations for some of these out there. --Rtrev 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's clear only to certain folks that the material is OR. The material is clearly flagged as the suggestions of parallels. Further, no one even attempted to implement or respond to any of the solutions offered by several people who saw the value in preserving this material in the discussion above. Instead, it was simply removed. The case here is one of function, which the material in question offers in spades (I am not defending all of the material, just the invitation it proffers to new visitors to contribute). It is essential that material of this sort be exempted from the OR ban because of the derivative nature of this film/text relationship. That is, anyone who has read the text and watched the film should be able to make many/most of the observations of relationships in the text that various users have contributed to the material in question. But because that thresh-hold (reading! A classical text!) is sadly high in this day and age, some people think use of the text needs to be cited. If I suggest that the Sirenes appear to manifest in the film as the three women washing, I have made an un-citable observation of fact. Such a comment is not worthy of scholarly attention due to its being so blasted obvious, and thus is highly unlikely to appear in any publication of record. In short, one needn't cite that yellow and blue make green. Much of this material requires only a sound familiarity with both works in order to render the material clearly observational and not OR in nature.

Besides, barely anything in the entire article is cited, yet here we have decided to enforce policy. Why? Furthermore, people will not add attributions if the material is gone, which ought to be abundantly clear. The insights and contributions of dozens of users have been wiped from the usable space of WP. 18.58, 18 Sept. 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.12.237 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that the material is largely original research, but I understand the concern about the difficulty in finding citations to verify it if it's completely gone. Could the material be placed here on the talk page, so that potential contributors can see it and look for/add citations? Joyous! | Talk 01:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It could very easily be placed here. I linked to it above only because it is a very lengthy segment. I have pasted it below: --Rtrev 02:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion for compromise, Joyous!; it's the blackballing without comment to which I've been objecting. However, this is, regrettably, not a long-term solution: The percentage of users who use or even check the discussions page has got to be below 1%, so while this preserves the material in a more usable way that the history, it doesn't address the unique nature of a derivative film, it makes the material invisible to the vast majority of users (some of whom might provide citations where needed), and no one has addressed my assertion that statement of observable fact (Ulysses is the Roman name of Odysseus) should require no citation. We are not holding the remainder of the article to this same standard! I am all for editing the text, which possesses anomalies and inaccuracies, but I refuse to invest my time and effort while the binge and purge approach to moderation is employed. If my hard work can be obliterated repeatedly by a policy with no sensitivity to the vagaries of textual criticism, publishable critical analysis, and the gulf between them and mere observations of correlation, WP has truly gone the way of the dodo.

I have edited the first two similarities below to demonstrate that these are not, or need not be, WP:OR -- 19 Sept. 2007

It seems the only way to force the adults back to the table is to resurrect the text again. Sorry. It seems the text was moved here only to appease and not to discuss. If indeed this matter is so unimportant to you, then please leave the text in question alone. If you care about the quality and content of this article, then let's find a solution that doesn't hide useful text from 99% of users. Now, are observations of fact (Ulysses is Roman name of Odysseus; Ulysses Everett McGill is the name of the main character in O Brother) verboten or not? If even un-cited but observable facts are forbidden, then why are we NOT applying this rule evenly throughout the article? The article is almost entirely un-cited. On the other hand, If we're just being pissy about someone having the temerity to challenge the un-democratic removal of content, then can't the code-enforcement people just entertain themselves elsewhere, or better yet, do something productive instead of policing, like finding citations for the huge remainder of the article, which they apparently believe to be of value, as they have NOT deleted it? Or help re-write the content that was unceremoniously dumped, and supposedly pasted below for "discussion"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.12.237 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is original research. To quote WP:OR: “Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts.”
• I think it is irresponsible for you to add these “facts” and then expect others to cite sources for them.
• Why should you be allowed to add whatever you want to an article, without citations, but then insist that it is a fact and prevent it from being removed?
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, it should be free of opinion. If you add something like this section to the article, others are allowed to challenge you. You have presented no sources for the information you contributed, the rest of us are simply following policy. I don’t see why, if you have a problem with Wikipedia policy, you should take it out on this page.
• The section contributes little to the article. It only seems useful to those who have read the Odyssey and seen the film. Consider a reader who has not done either.
• Other derivative films don’t have sections like this. Evan Almighty is based on a biblical story, but it doesn’t have a similarities section.
• As it is, the similarities section is almost a list of trivia.

I understand your frustration with people who remove your content without comment. However, your phrase "un-democratic removal of content" is a bit rich, since you seem to be "un-democratically" adding content yourself. I have no problem with either, be bold! But you need to be prepared to take criticism.

For the reasons I've listed above, I am removing the similarities section from the article. I am more than willing to discuss this decision and negotiate. I'd recommend re-writing the section as prose, reducing the number of similaritities you list and making it less speculative. Maybe trying to find some sources for the material yourself would be a good idea as well. Davidovic 06:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Davidovic. Welcome to the discussion. I'm not sure why you think I'm "unprepared" for criticism. I'm equally unclear why you assumed the content is mine . . . that I "added" it. I did not. I've restored it, yes, but only a few fragments are my own. The content is the product of dozens of users over many months and years who clearly disagree with your estimation that the material has use only to people who have read the classic text and seen the movie. So, um, yes, "un-democratic" is exactly the right word for anyone who removes content without consulting the authors, supporters and reviewers of the content in question, especially given how few people, even contributors, know how to restore deleted content. You also do not address why you feel THIS content should be held to the citation standard, while the remainder of the article is clearly given a pass, containing, at my last count, all of TWO citations. Let's at least be equal opportunity in our mock-piety.

If you think *observable facts* need citations, you're no literary scholar. Perhaps publishable scientific data makes this requirement of its contributors (and to save you the time, it merely has a higher thresh-hold, but does NOT, in fact, require citation of easily verifiable facts, like the boiling point of water at sea level, for example). But literary and cultural studies, as bodies of research, do *not* require citations of indisputable observation, as in the first bullet in the contested content.

So if you'd be so kind as to investigate the history of the content in question, you might check the self-righteousness and note that I do not "expect others to find sources" for the material, as you put it. I ask that the uninformed leave it alone. As I've already said, I'm NOT going to invest time in cleaning up the more questionable elements of the content in question (at least you noticed that much) without assurances that the self-appointed WP:OR police step off and stop removing the content. This is precisely why people give up on cleaning good content and resort to simple-minded deletion. Hey, it's easier, requires no thought, and minimal effort. 0:10 30 Sept. 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.12.237 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for assuming the content was entirely yours. I hadn't looked that far back into the article's history. Now, as I said, in most circumstances I don't have a problem with "un-democratic" removal or addition of content to articles, that's really the point of Wikipedia. The reason that this content should be held to the citation standard (and believe me, other parts of the article need citation too) is because much of it is interpretation of the text, rather than observable fact. Observable facts do not need citations, you're right, but there are many statements in the content below that are not observable facts.

As I've said, I don't think that this content has a place in the article. However, you obviously disagree, and that's fine. I'm willing to compromise, and to illustrate that I've added what I see as the "observable" parts of the section into the article under the title "References to the Odyssey." I've tried to steer clear of retelling the plot of the Odyssey, instead citing the appropriate sections of an online translation. I've also, I think, cleaned up the writing in general. Should you decide to improve the content below and add your improvements to the article, I would not remove them.

Finally, I'd like to apologise if I came off as a jerk earlier, that wasn't my intention. Davidovic 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Davidoc. I'm delighted to be communicating with someone who is willing to struggle with the finer points of this question. It's not so cut and dried as some would have it. I also was angry and wrote without checking my tone, and I apologize as well. Thanks for lending a little needed civility here.

I do not maintain that all, or frankly even most, of the material is needed. I am very happy to work with anyone toward improving this material especially with your help in preserving it while we work. I do think this is a more important duty than for films like Evan Almighty, but I wouldn't assert that a section on the correlations for that film would be without value, not having devoted any study of my own to that film.

I really appreciate your helping to clean this text and find what is useful within it. I have a hellacious week ahead, but will be back next week to continue paring this section and identifying observable facts amid the jumble of efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.12.237 (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Similarities Between Film and Classical Text

• In the classical source texts, Ulysses is the Roman name of the Greek Odysseus. In the film, the main character's name is Ulysses Everett McGill.
• In the classical texts, Odysseus' pride and vanity frequently inhibit his success, such as when he yells his name and home to Polyphemus the Cyclopes and with that information, Polyphemus is able to ask Poseidon to cause more trouble for Odysseus. In the film Everett applies hair pomade throughout, suggesting his vanity, and in one scene after he refuses to be baptized, viewers learn that the smell of the pomade is how the dogs are able to track the three friends so easily. Pete even mentions in the following scene that, had Everett agreed to be baptized, "At least it would've washed away the stink of that Pomade." Everett's vanity causes problems for the three.
• The blind black man on the push Rail Road cart is Nestor, oldest of the Trojan War heroes, who is consulted by Odysseus' son Telemachus as the first encounter with a strange or secondary character in the "Odyssey". He is repeatedly and formally described by Homer as the 'Gerenian charioteer': the Rail Road cart obviously represents the chariot. The blindness may be borrowed from the blind seer Teiresias, prominent in Sophocles' 'Oedipus Rex', (and T.S.Eliot's 'The Waste Land'). At a much later point in the "Odyssey", Odysseus descends into the underworld to seek guidance from the shade of Teiresias, just as his son had sought guidance from the supposedly wise (though unduly garrulous) Nestor. Furthermore, Homer himself was according to tradition blind and bearded.
• Big Dan Teague (John Goodman) (with an eye patch) corresponds to Polyphemus the Cyclops. In the Odyssey, the cyclops eventually falls asleep and has his eye put out by Odysseus and his crew with a sharpened smoldering log. In the film, Big Dan is almost blinded by the sharpened stake of the Confederate flag but catches it, only to be crushed underneath the flaming cross that Everett cuts loose.
• Another reference to the blinding of Polyphemus is made in the scene in the theater where a group of men run to Homer Stokes with a big wooden pole, only just stopping before they would hit his head. This reminds also of images on ancient Greek vases, picturing this scene of the "Odyssey".
• Ulysses' wife Penelope (Penny, played by Holly Hunter) has suitors in both stories.
• Disguises are frequently used in both.
• "O Muse! Sing in me, and through me tell the story...", the line at the beginning of the film, is the first line of the Odyssey.
• Pete's cousin, Mr. Hogwollop, could represent Menelaus, the Greek king whose wife Helen started the whole Trojan war by running away with a prince of Troy. In the movie, Mrs. Hogwollop has "r-u-n-n-o-f-t" just as Helen did.
• The merciless sheriff (Daniel von Bargen) wanting to lynch him is perhaps analogous to Poseidon in the story of the Odyssey; this is strengthened by the presence of a hunting dog, which echoes Cerberus as well as the common mythological Hellhounds. The link between the two (Satan and Poseidon) is made when Ulysses mentions that Satan carries "a giant hay fork" (a trident); both figures are often depicted with just such an instrument. This could also be a reference to Hades, the god of the underworld (cf. Satan), which also is depicted as carrying a (two-pointed) fork. Perhaps in relation to this, he also bears an uncanny resemblance to Boss Godfrey from Cool Hand Luke. Near the end of the movie, he states "The law is a human institution," suggesting that the sheriff is not human at all. He is shown with fire reflected in his sunglasses, giving him a supernatural aura. All of the sheriff's paralleled characters embody an antagonist in possession of some degree of supernatural characteristics.[citation needed] Blues musician Tommy Johnson, who has reportedly seen Satan, describes him as 'white as a ghost, with hollow eyes and a mean ole hound' - the hollow eyes likely referring to the sheriff's dark glasses.
• The travelers' siege in the Hogwallop barn alludes to Odysseus's dangerous course between Scylla and Charybdis when Ulysses helplessly cries "Damn! We're in a tight spot!" several times.
• A trance-like progression of worshippers seeking to be baptised. Their glassy eyed placidity draws a parallel with the Lotus-Eaters of the Odyssey.
• The real correlation between the Lotus Eaters and the baptizers in the movie is the relationship between baptism and the lotus flower. The Bible teaches that baptism is a symbol for "washing away sins" or washing away one's past, just as the lotus flowers made those who ate them forget about their own pasts.
• Immediately after Delmar is baptized, he proclaims he will only follow "the straight and narrow from here on out." This may be an allusion to the crew of Odysseus no longer wanting to continue on their quest after an encounter with the Lotus-Eaters.
• Sirens, who lure the hero with their singing, and treat him to corn liquor until he passes out. The sirens also have an element of the sorceress Circe by appearing to transform one of his companions into an animal. They also echo Odysseus's meeting with the princess Nausicaa, who along with two maidens washes clothes, bathes, and sings enchantingly in a river while Odysseus sleeps nearby; Odysseus wakens and sweet-talks Nausicaa more successfully than Everett's attempt ("You ladies are about the three prettiest water lilies....").
• The segment in which Peter appears to have been transformed into a toad is reminiscent of the Odyssey in which one of Odysseus's sailors is exchanged for a newt.
• As Odysseus visits Aeolus on the floating island of Aeolia, Everett visits the radio station WEZY, an isolated building in the desert. He and his friends scam the blind proprietor of the radio station (Stephen Root), and record what will become their hit song and eventual salvation, but only after several misadventures; likewise, Odysseus and his crew convince Aeolus to bind all the winds except the winds to bring them home, so that they will have a straight shot to Ithaca. However, upon sighting Ithaca the crew becomes so excited they release the other winds, and the ship is dashed away from the island, only to return again after several years and similar misadventures.
• Pappy O'Daniel's first name, Menelaus, is the name of the king of Sparta who fought alongside Odysseus.
• The scene in the theater, when Pete tries to warn Ulysses and Delmar, parallels Odysseus' descent into the underworld, Hades. Delmar, believing that Pete had died, mistakes him (and thus also the other people in the theater) for a ghost. In this scene Pete parallels Tiresias in the underworld.
• Another likely parallel to the underworld is the KKK's cross-burning ceremony. Pete, Delmar, and Everett fall down a steep incline (hence, a descent), and rise bathed in the red light of the flames of the Klan's ceremony. The flames, chanting chorus, and the grand wizard in his bright red robes all suggest a hellish place.
• The challenger in the governor's race is named "Homer" Stokes (his first name is the same as the author of the Odyssey).
• At one point George Nelson shoots at a herd of cattle. This may be a reference to a scene in the book where Odysseus and his fellow travelers slaughter the cows of the sun god Helios. As Ulysses warns his men against killing the sacred oxen of the sun for food, Delmar warns Nelson, "Oh, George, not the livestock!" In addition to this, in the Odyssey, Odysseus' ship is struck by a thunderbolt — killing all but our hero. In O Brother, George is executed in the electric chair, and during the parade to the execution, someone leading a cow behind the mob yells, "Cow killer!!!"
• George Nelson also parallels the role of Agamemnon. Agamemnon persuaded a reluctant Odysseus into joining the Greeks against Troy, while George Nelson enlisted Everett and the boys as accomplices in his bank-robbing spree. George Nelson also exhibits bipolar characteristics consistent with the behavior of Agamemnon throughout The Illiad and The Odyssey.
• In the movie, Ulysses, Pete, and Delmar float on a coffin after the area his home is in is flooded. In the original Odyssey, Odysseus sails on a raft for 17 days before it is destroyed by Poseidon.
• When we see Pappy O'Daniel discussing the upcoming campaign in the restaurant, over his shoulder we can see a bust of Homer.
• The blind man in the radio station may represent Homer, the supposed blind author of the Odyssey, since, just as Homer was the first to record the story of Odysseus, the blind radio station operator is the "first" to "record" Everett and his Soggy Bottom Boys.
• Boats in the original are transformed into cars in the film. When Baby Face Nelson opens his car door to shoot at his pursuers, he asks Everett to "take the tiller", meaning the steering wheel.
• In the original, Ulysses' men were, of course, sailors. In the film, Everett's men have connections to water, too. Delmar is Spanish for "of the sea" -- del mar -- and Pete, a form of Peter, suggests Saint Peter, the disciple of Jesus who was a fisherman when summoned, and later walked on water.
• The scene in which Homer Stokes is denounced is a reference to the Trojan War. After months of political fighting, Pappy O'Daniel (first name Menelaus) secures his victory by sneaking a secret weapon into the scene. The Soggy Bottom Boys are O'Daniel's Trojan Horse. Everett is afterwards pardoned, much as Odysseus was at last free to return home.
• Ulysses' daughters stand for Telemachus in the Odyssey. Ulysses first meets his daughters again, before he meets his wife, as Odysseus first meets his son, and later on Penelope.
• Vernon T. Waldrip is a suitor of Penny, which is similar to the multiple suitors in the Odyssey. Waldrip looks very similar to James Joyce, author of the avantgarde novel Ulysses. Everett also comes back to stop the marriage and fight Vernon, as does Odysseus come back to kill the suitors. The dialogue in a scene between Everett and his daughters also gives a nod to its ancient influence. Using Latin terms, one of the girls says that Waldrip is bona fide, and Everett responds that he is the pater familias.
• The movie follows the theme of in media res, which means in the middle of things. In the Odyssey, it begins by telling of Odysseus being trapped on Calypso's island without telling how he became trapped there until later in the epic. In O Brother, Where Art Thou?, the movie begins with Everett, Delmar, and Pete escaping from the labor farm without telling how they arrived there in the first place.
• At the end of the film, Everett's wife sets him a near-impossible task of retrieving a ring. At the end of the Odyssey, Odysseus still has a quest left as well: he must take an oar and bury it in the land where there are men that don't know of boats.
• In the scene where the trio discuss what they would do with their share of the "treasure", there are Greek columns in the background.

Other notable episodes in the film include the trio encountering:

• The bank robber George "Baby Face" Nelson
• a KKK lynch mob
• A blues guitarist called Tommy Johnson. Popular belief is that this character is modeled after Robert Johnson (musician), in light of the crossroads deal with the Devil. The Tommy Johnson character can be seen playing guitar cross-legged in the fictional WEZY studio in much the same fashion that Robert Johnson is posed while playing guitar in one of the only surviving photos of the blues legend. However, there was a blues guitarist named Tommy Johnson, from where Robert Johnson allegedly borrowed the tale of the crossroads. It is unclear which artist is the inspiration for the character, but it could be concluded that he is a portmanteau of the two
• Bluegrass musicians seemingly modeled after the Carter Family.
• Homer Stokes, who leads the county's chapter of the KKK (cf. Exalted Cyclops), bears a resemblance to a real-life Klansman, William J. Simmons. [1]
• Big Dan Teague, who is also a member of the KKK, bears a resemblance to another real-life member, D. C. Stephenson.

Plot

I don't understand why the plot section is only one paragraph long, and the similarities section takes up half the article. I might start work, in my free time, on a new plot section. I'll try to work in some of the similarities, but since most of them are vague and purely speculative, I don't really think they should be in the article at all. Davidovic 12:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be wonderful. The real reason for this is that there is a very 'insistent' IP editor who violates 3RR in order to re-add the long similarities section. It is largely OR but I haven't gotten around to removing it and making it stick unless things are added with citations. But a decent plot section would be wonderful. Thanks. --Rtrev 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added an extensive plot synopsis. It's not very good, but it's better than what was there before. Davidovic 06:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Great improvement... thanks. --Rtrev 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation, Similarities Section

While I'm aware that it is preferable for something to be cited, but I do not believe that a statement should be removed solely on the basis of not being cited. If you can produce proof that the facts you removed are untrue, then it is proper to remove them, otherwise tag them as un-cited and wait for it to be corrected.

I think it would be appropriate, however, for the entire similarities section to be removed, or rewritten in paragraph form as it now it seems more like a trivia section, and original research. --Osho-Jabbe 01:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is largely WP:OR and trivia. It is an important point that there are similarities but should be tightly written. One of the problems in doing this was a very "adamant" IP editor who kept reverting edits. However, I think the section could be a lot better. If anyone is up to summarizing please go ahead. --Rtrev 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you both, however I'm not really up to the task of summarizing it. My reason for removing it before was that far too much of it was OR. I added back things that I believe are truly observable (ie. Names, Penny ^ suitors etc) however, a lot has been added that I don't believe can be cited. Things like this: "In the Odyssey, Ulysses and his men escape the Cyclops by binding themselves under his sheep. In the film, Ulysses and his companions hide in white KKK outfits in the presence of Big Dan." do not belong on Wikipedia, it's pure speculation. It's like saying that both Everett and Ulysses wore cotton. While true, it's meaningless.

I'm going to remove that single point for the following reasons:

• While Odysseus escapes the cyclops by hiding himself, the trio don't escape Big Dan. In fact they never knew he was at the rally, so they didn't disguise themselves because of him.
• It's pure speculation that this was an intended reference. While I know that everything we see on the scene is done for a reason, that does not explain this "similarity."

I would like to keep the references/similarities section as short as possible, with things that can clearly be seen when you watch the film and read the text. Davidovic 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I added a comment to the section asking for editors not to add uncited items without discussion first. It is obviously not binding at all, just a request but it is often affective. I would be disappointed if this section ballooned again into the WP:OR behemoth it once was. --Rtrev 18:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You really believe that the boys hiding under KKK garb isn't a nod to hiding under sheep? I agree that Big Dan and the Cyclops don't hold up in the comparison, but hiding under the sheep/KKK outfits is pretty obvious. Of course, like everything else with this film, there's very little confirmation that can be found online aside from other people making the same speculations.

Just because it's a film based on the Odyssey doesn't mean that every single bit of it is a reference. Wikipedia is not a place3 for people to espouse their beliefs, it is a place for facts. Davidovic 00:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

None of these comparisons are 'facts' because the writers of the film have not discussed them publicly, beyond giving credit to the book as a source. It's all speculation and interpretation. It doesn't make sense to allow some bits of unsubstantiated speculation and not others. I'd recommend creating a separate article or section focusing on possible connections, and excise them from the main article entirely, considering you're otherwise going to be deleting some and not others as you see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.8.86 (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact that Ulysses is the Latin form of Odysseus. It's a fact that there is bust of Homer in a set constructed for the film. I don't think a separate article is necessary at all, in fact I'd discourage it as it would probably be merged right back into this article, but go ahead with it if you want. As for deleting things as I see fit, I guess that is what I'm doing. Is there anything wrong with that? I've provided reasons for my deletions which I think are satisfactory, and it's not like I'm the only person who thinks that OR shouldn't be in this article. Davidovic 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And those are the only two facts. The rest of the included comparisons do contain OR and do not cite sources that explain the comparison. In fact, the only sources cited talk about the Odyssey and don't mention O Brother at all. You obviously spend more time on this wiki entry than others, but it doesn't make sense to me to have you tossing out some completely non-factual comparisons out while leaving others in. It might make sense to you, but there's a lot of assumptions and OR in that section now, which goes against what you're arguing in this discussion. It's sloppy upkeep, pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.8.86 (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Usually I try to steer clear of editing things that I know little about, and while I've seen this film many, many times, I've only read some parts of the Odyssey. I have removed some things, but not because I, personally, do not see the connection between the two texts (except in one instance), but because I, personally, do not see the relevance of those similarities to the article, and they have not been cited properly. I apologise for making an effort, and only referencing sources about the Odyssey, but the rest of the plot description doesn't reference anything about the film, as the sequence of events is plain if you actually watch the film. Say, for example, that I wanted to say that there is a bust of Homer in the background of a scene, I don't have to reference anything, because it is an observable fact. However, if I want to show that the Sirens sing enticing songs in both texts, I don't need to reference the film, but I decided to reference the exact chapter of the Odyssey where it happens, so that readers can easily verify the claim.

• Ulysses is the Latin language form of Odysseus. In the film, the main character's first name is Ulysses.
• Pappy O'Daniel's first name, Menelaus, is the name of the king of Sparta who fought alongside Odysseus.
• The Sirens of both texts lure the heroes with enticing songs.
• There are parallels between Pete supposedly turning into a toad, and Circe's transformation of Odysseus's men into Pigs. - I haven't read this bit of the Odyssey, it could be true, but this claim is unreferenced, and generally anything that has "parralels" or is "reminiscent" isn't strong enough to be clear to every reader.
• 'Big' Dan Teague's appearance is reminiscent of Polyphemus the Cyclops. - Needs to be rewriten, as the single eye is the only definitive thing they have in common.
• When we see Pappy O'Daniel discussing the upcoming campaign in the restaurant, over his shoulder we can see a bust of Homer.
• In the classical texts, Odysseus' vanity frequently inhibit his success. In the film, Everett's vanity causes problems for the trio, as the police track them by the smell of his hair gel. - Although I see this as being true, it might not be a strong enough point, and I doubt all readers would draw the same conclusions.
• Ulysses must win his wife Penelope (Penny) back from suitors in both stories.
• George Nelson's killing of cows and subsequent punishment for the act mirrors Odysseus's men being punished for killing cows on the island of the sun. - I haven't read this bit of the Odyssey, it could be true, but this claim is unreferenced, and generally anything that has "parralels" or is "reminiscent" isn't strong enough to be clear to every reader.
• The blind prophet on the rail handcar bears similarities to Tiresias, the blind prophet in the Odyssey. - Once again, needs to be rewritten to emphasize that the similarities lie in them both being blind.

These are the changes I'm making, to hopefully make the similarities section more factual. Just because the filmmakers haven't stated that something is the case, we can still draw comparisons between characters of both texts, as long as the similarities are only observable fact.

Please do not claim that I'm hypocritical, I understand that it's frustrating when people remove your contributions to an article, but we've reached a consensus on this talk page that OR should not remain in this article. If you look at my other contributions to this article, I hope you'll see that I'm trying to make it better. The fact of the matter is that there are very few similarities that are truly observable. Davidovic 00:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If people want to cite similarities the New York Times review (now available without paying) from 2000 has several references. I cited the Robert Johnson/Tommy Johnson similarity but I don't have time right now to do more. There are definitely at leasta couple in here plus some good allusions to other things. Anyway, here is the article. --Rtrev 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful. Davidovic 00:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of similarities section

OK. Even with the instruction on how to add a point to the references/similarities section on the article, people are still adding uncited OR. I don't want to keep removing these contributions, as it seems a little harsh on the people who add them, as what they add usually isn't untrue. I propose removing the similarities section, adding the current similarities into the plot summary and leaving a hidden message in the article saying that similarities between the film and the Odyssey can be discussed on the talk page. Does anyone support this? Anyone got any alternative ideas?

Thanks. Davidovic 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's any objection to this within the next 42 hours, I'll go ahead and write the similarities into the plot summary. Davidovic 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please feel free to add any more objective similarities to the prose. Davidovic 12:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Davidovic, I see that I left you to fight the good fight regarding the importance of Homer's text to a richer understanding and appreciation of the film. My job swallowed me whole, and I've only now returned to see how much has happened. The article was at one time a great launch-pad for discussion in a class that I teach. I'm saddened to see that observable facts are off limits, and again I'll disingenuously suggest that the same standard be applied to the rest of the article -- largely devoid of citation -- and then see what remains. A similarities section invited new content. Sure, some of it, maybe most, had to go. But the change to plot observations only mostly shuts the door on that invitation. What once was a collection of material from the people for non-scholarly but helpful information has now become a playground for pseudo-specialists and specialists alike, removing the "encrustations" of the proletariat and saving us all. Well, goodbye Wikipedia. Rest well. I'd only ever valued you for your "fast and loose" democratic snapshots of "stuff as we non-experts understand it", and now you can't even do that. 11:49, 8 November 2007.

I think you misunderstand what I've done. As a separate section, many people were adding references and similarities to the Odyssey that qualified as WP:OR. After separating the objective similarities from the subjective, all I've done is integrate the references and similarities section in to the rest of the article. Even though yes, the section is deleted, the content from it was not. I don't see how removing the individual section prevents people from adding to the article. I'm still open to a references and similarities section written in prose, but as a list it was getting far too many poor additions. You can see in this diff the changes that I made when removing the references and similarities section. As for references, I'm doing what I can to improve them. I'm sorry to see you go, your contributions to this article were highly valued. Davidovic 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Grammy discrepancy

According to the official website of the Grammy Awards, the O Brother soundtrack won in 2001, at the 44th Annual Grammy Awards. See this search page. But, several other websites (including Wikipedia) seem to have the Grammy awards years messed up severely. Wikipedia claims that the 43rd Grammy Awards were held in 2001, and the 44th (the one that the O Brother soundtrack won at) was held in 2002. I'm taking the official website's word for it, and that's why I changed the reference to Infoplease, because it seems to match up. Thanks. Davidovic 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored parallel section with Odyssey to main article

One of the important features of this film was that they were really retelling a very old story. When I looked this up in Wikipedia, I was hoping to see a discussion of the parallels, but there was none. Over on the discussion page, I found a good statement of these parallels. Using nothing but my own general knowledge of the Odyssey (I did read it) I cut down some of the suggested parallels that seemed remote, and trimmed discussion of some others, but basically adopted the discussion page points that somebody had taken out of the main article. I tried to organize it a bit, it probably looks awkward, I'm sure it can be improved. People really miss out on what this movie was all about unless they have the tie-in to the classical context, and with links, that can be made really fast. Wikipedia is a really good medium for this kind of comparison.Mtsmallwood (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I can really see with the addition is that now there's a huge amount of links to the similarities section in the TOC, which (to me, at least) looks odd. This problem could probably be avoided if the section was converted into prose (no easy task) Apart from that, it looks good. Davidovic 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, it does look clunky, and I didn't like it once I saw it up. Current parallel section started out as laundry list I found on the discussion page. I edited it down and tried to organize them thematically, thus making the redundant or stretchy parallels more easy to see and eliminate. Maybe there's a more eye-pleasing way to do this, not sure. Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on making it a little more prosaic, although for now I'll leave the lists (for clarity's sake). I'm also sorting them all into three subsections, "References", "Character parallels" and "Plot parallels". The end objective of this would be to have only those three subsections, and maybe one for miscellanea as well, take a look at what I've done to the opening of the similarities section, in terms of prose. I think it would be preferable to use prose instead of subheadings, it would read better that way. I removed the following from the "name references" section, just because they don't really fit there (I don't think)

• Odysseus' men were sailors. In the film, Everett's men have connections to water. Delmar is Spanish for "of the sea" -- del mar -- and Pete, a form of Peter, suggests Saint Peter, the disciple of Jesus who was a fisherman when summoned, and later walked on water.
• Hogwallup, Pete's cousin, is the first man they met after they hear the blind man's prophecy. Hogwallup's name suggests swine, and the first person Odysseus met on returning to Ithaca was Eumaeus, also a swineherd. Like Hogwallup in the film, Eumaeus gives Odysseus food and shelter, but unlike Hogwallup, Eumaeus does not betray his guests.

I'm not saying they don't have a place in the similarities section, just not in that particular subsection. I planned to do more work that I have done, but I don't have much time. Anyway, take a look at what I've done, feel free to revert it, but I'd like to hear your opinion on it :) Davidovic 05:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Agree on the sailors, that seems too remote. Hogwallup seems a good comparison, especially since as I recall the first thing we see is a pig just before Delmar, Pete and Everett come walking onto the farm. Of course, unlike Eumaeus in the Odyssey, Hogwallup betrays Everett. So, who knows, but it seems like it ought to fit in somehow Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hellish?

Although I agree that the KKK scene is meant to symbolize evil and most likely Hell, I think it is important to acknowledge the scene as not a true reference to the underworld. We must remember that the underworld was where everywhere went. In pop culture, this and other movies like an animated movie about the Hercules may portray it as a sort of hell, with Mt. Olympus being heaven, this is simply not true. It was not a horrible thing to go to the underworld. In fact, the worst punishment was to be kept from the underworld to wander on earth forever. I question the word "hellish" because I directly infer (as I am sure all readers would) that a hellish underworld is Hell. Also, the movie theater, as far as I am concerned, is THE scene from Homer's epic poem where Odysseus goes to the land of the dead. Less about Homer's story, the scene is more about, I believe, progressing the plot of the movie by portraying the evil of people like Homer Stokes and the "Cyclops" as the demons. It may be symbolizing them going down to Hell, but not the land of the dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugwort123456789 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Shorten plot account, because of the good "cast of caracters."

The plot description is a little too detailed for Wiki. In fact there is a policy on that, which I don't want to blast on the article (I don't remember where the policy is).

The cast of character outline is terrific, and perhaps the aspects of the plot not discussed there could be boiled down and moved.

--Shlishke (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not based on the Odyssey

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/02/25/080225crat_atlarge_denby

"'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' (2000) begins with a title stating that the movie is “based upon ‘The Odyssey’ by Homer,” which they later claimed they had never read."

I've read this before; unfortunately, only in secondary sources. 71.194.62.168 (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's okay; secondary sources are generally better than primary sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. To more fully quote the New Yorker article: "In the opening titles for “Fargo” (1996), they announced that the movie was based on a true story, though it wasn’t. “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000) begins with a title stating that the movie is “based upon ‘The Odyssey’ by Homer,” which they later claimed they had never read."

This seems to be a real-life incidence of Doctor Who's first rule: The Doctor lies! But which aspect are they lying about? The Odyssey statement (with a quote from the epic) or saying that they never read it? There are other New Yorker articles that mention the film; here are a few:

"[The movie is] their version of the Odyssey, which is set in Mississippi during the depression..."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/09/04/siren-call [Unable to read the full article as I'm not a subscriber.]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/09/04/siren-call-2

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/movie-of-the-week-sullivans-travels [Unable to read the full article as I'm not a subscriber.]

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/behind-two-good-movies-two-great-books [Unable to read the full article as I'm not a subscriber.]

From the BBC website, these are a few of their articles, including one that has an interesting take on just what the film, was based upon:

"But as usual with the Coens’ movies, things are never what they seem. For the film is also loosely based on Homer’s 'Odyssey' and as such the boys bump into all manner of folk on their quest, from a one-eyed bible salesman (John Goodman) to a campaigning mayoral candidate (Charles Durning)."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/09/11/o_brother_review.shtml

"The Coens claim their yarn is really based on Homer's "Odyssey" and the main character, played by George Clooney, has Ulysses in his name, while his estranged wife is Penny (Holly Hunter), short for Penelope, and various others have Homeric associations, including the one-eyed John Goodman, a Cyclopian villain." [. . .]

"Of course, the Coens are having fun. Their knowledge of the Greek myth appears to be largely confined to the Kirk Douglas movie "Ulysses" (1954), but "O Brother Where Art Thou?" has many resonances of Depression-era cinema, notably "The Grapes of Wrath", "Bonnie and Clyde", and "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang". [My emphasis.] The article goes on to say that the KKK lynching scene is compared more to Busby Berkley and "a jungle "Road" comedy".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/10/18/sullivans_o_brother_article.shtml

Tongue-in-cheek article: "Cheat's guide to Joyce's Ulysses"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3810193.stm

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Look of the Film

This sentence: "After shooting tests, including film by-pack and bleach bypass techniques, Deakins suggested digital mastering be used." should be corrected; The correct term is "bi-pack" or "bipack" and there is even an available Wiki link for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipack Androider (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change, too. SpankyMac (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Music

I would like to either add a section (table) listing ALL the music from the movie; or expand it to another article... Any issues? or people willing to help with some of the songs? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Still no citations for the speculative original research in the "Similarities between the film and The Odyssey" section. The last discussion on this topic died down almost two years ago. Applying original research tag. The "Plot parallels" sub-section is a big offender here. Passitivity (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• As this is one of the more notable aspects of the movie, I'll work on this over the next while. Thanks for bringing it up. Unitanode 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

KKK Cyclops

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned, but in the Ku Klux Klan, the leader of a certain Klan is known as the Grand Cyclops (sometimes simply shortened to the Cyclops). This appears to be an obvious reference to Homer's Cyclops in the Odyssey. At the KKK meeting, he is, in a similar way to the Cyclops bested by Everett as he flees from almost certain death. I don't know how to make any changes, but this is a suggestion that others may act on if they please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugendugen (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"We aint got a radio"

I remember this line was originally something different in the theaters, but I can't find a source for it.. Does anyone remember what it is, seems like something that would be worth including in the article. 96.39.166.159 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That line was spoken by the sheriff after he and his men apprehended the four lead characters at the imminently-flooded shack. He had waited in ambush for them and had graves dug for the three chain gang escapees. As he had his men string up nooses, Everett explains that they were just pardoned by the governor over the radio. The sheriff relied, "We ain't got a radio." (Or words to that effect.) Yours, 24.47.173.120 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops! That's me. I didn't realize that my log-in just above had timed-out. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

art....what is art???* thou means you art....???? help

art is what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.38.156.47 (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly: O' Brother where art thou = Brother where are you. Hope that helps. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The year

The film is most likely set in 1937. It can be inferred from the following lines:

• Pete: I had two weeks left on my sentence.
• ...
• Pete: My added time for the escape, I don't get out now till 19... 87.
• ...
• Delmar: I guess they'll tack on 50 years for me, too.

--Jvs.cz (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Another work by the same name?

In the movie "Sullivan's Travels" (1941) there is a reference to "the old Oh Brother Where Art Thou" (5-7 minutes in). Does anyone know what this is; book or movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.102.69 (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

award nominations

ok This movie was nominated for two Academy Awards for best screenplay and best cinematography. shouldn't this be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.170.113 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Chiastic Structure

The movie also vaguely follows the chiastic structure, where images and characters are repeated in a mirrored way, ABBA, as happens in "The Odyssey". Mostly strikingly by the man on the handcar. I don't have the sources handy but it's been looked at and is an interesting note about the similarities in the two works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.17.53 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Be nice to find ref for O Brother. Plenty there for the Odyssey itself. I don't think we can jump to that same conclusion because they are similar. Would be WP:OR IMO. Good idea, though. Student7 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Similarities to the Odyssey

This very long section provides no sources whatsoever, and the theme is so vague it empowers individual editors to introduce their own original research, of which this section is full. It needs a serious trimming, and soon. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I put an 'original research' tag on it; if no references appear soon, it should be nuked, keeping only the quote from the Coens. Cop 663 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm remebering wrong, the tag has been placed in the past and nothing done about it other than to make the section worse. I went ahead and removed the mess. Millahnna (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Baby with the bathwater

While references are clearly needed, the parallels are sometimes fairly obvious despite one Coen's offhand "disclaimer." It was clearly written with the Odyssey in mind. Here is the deleted portions most of which need citation. Okay, I've removed some subsections that seemed a stretch, even to me!

"The only direct references are the line of text shown at the beginning of the film — "O Muse! Sing in me, and through me tell the story..." — which is one translation of the first line of The Odyssey.

Many other characters and situations are allusions to the book:

• Ulysses, the Latin form of the Greek name Odysseus, is the first name of the film's protagonist, Ulysses Everett McGill.
• The name Delmar means "of the sea," and the name Peter means "the rock." This is a loose reference to when Odysseus travels between the cliffs in which the six headed monster, Scylla, stands and the sea which holds Charybdis, the whirlpool. Therefore, Everett travels between Delmar (the sea) and Pete (the rock). In the majority of the scenes, Everett is seen between Delmar and Pete.
• Odysseus, being away at sea for ten years, is absent when his wife gives birth to Telemachus, with whom she was pregnant when he left. Everett is unaware that Penny has had another child while he was away.
• The old blind man is Tiresias, the blind ghost prophet.
• The Lotus Eaters are represented by the congregation walking trance-like to be baptized.
• The blind man who runs the radio station and pays Everett, Pete, Delmar, and Tommy money for singing is a reference to the blind singer Demodokos. (Some scholars claim that Demodokos is a representation of Homer himself, who was believed to be blind.)
• George Nelson shooting the cattle alludes to Odysseus's crew slaughtering Helios' cattle in The Odyssey. Zeus casts down a lightning bolt to punish Odysseus's crew for killing the sun god's cattle, and George Nelson's punishment is death by electrocution on the electric chair (different from the actual bank robber's death).
• The washing women who seduce the heroes represent several female characters: Like the Sirens who attempt to seduce Odysseus and his crew by song, they sit on rocks in the water and seduce Everett, Pete, and Delmar while singing. They are also similar to the goddess Circe who turns some of Odysseus' men into animals, paralleled by Pete seemingly turned into a toad. Finally, they recall the scene in the Odyssey where Odysseus meets Nausicaa and her maids washing clothes in the river.
• Daniel "Big Dan" Teague (John Goodman), with his one good eye, is an allusion to Polyphemus the Cyclops. While in "The Odyssey", Odysseus and his men blind the Cyclops with a spear in his one eye, Daniel "Big Dan" Teague stops a pole falling on him only a second before it pierces and kills him, before actually being struck by the Ku Klux Klan burning cross.
• Everett's wife is named Penny, a shortened version of Penelope, Odysseus' wife.
• Everett sings farewell to old Kentucky, while Homer's Ulysses said farewell to old Ithaki (Ithaca).
• Everett's last line, in reference to finding his wife's ring at the bottom of a lake, is "That's one hell of a heroic task."

Subsection:Parallels with the Underworld

• The scene in the theater, when Pete tries to warn Everett and Delmar, parallels Odysseus' descent into the underworld, Hades. Delmar, believing that Pete had died, mistakes him (and thus also the other people in the theater) for a ghost. In this scene, Pete parallels Tiresias in the underworld. Odysseus sees a ghost of his mother in the underground world.

Subtitle:Miscellaneous parallels

• Big Dan's character is a member of the KKK. One particular rank in the KKK is a Grand Cyclops, who ran an individual den, another reference to him being Polyphemus, the cyclops character.
• Homer Stokes is a reference to the author of the Odyssey
• The dialogue in a scene between Everett and his daughters also gives a nod to its ancient influence. Using Latin terms, one of the girls says that Waldrip is bona fide, and Everett responds that he is the pater familias. The girls also use the word "suitor" at least three times, recalling Penelope's suitors in the Odyssey.
• In the scene where the trio and George Nelson are sitting around the fire after the robbery at Itta Bena, there are Greek columns in the background.
• Everett also comes back to stop the marriage and fight Vernon, much as Odysseus comes back to kill the suitors. Everett, however, is badly beaten by Vernon, perhaps creating a parallel with Telemachus' inability to discharge his mother's suitors.
• In one scene, Everett, Pete and Delmar disguise themselves as members of the Ku Klux Klan. In The Odyssey, the blind cyclops lets his sheep out to graze, trying to make sure that no one was attempting to escape by feeling the sheep's backs, but Odysseus tied his men and himself to the undersides of the sheep and so they got out.
• Everett calls himself "The Old Campaigner" or "The Old Tactician" on various occasions, an epithet for Odysseus.
• Everett has 7 daughters, a unique spin on Odysseus having only one son. Also, Everett has never seen his youngest daughter, much like Odysseus has seen very little of his son Telemachus, who was only a baby when Odysseus left for Troy.
• Pete is thought by Delmar to have been turned into a frog, mirroring Circe's transformation of Odysseus' crew into swine.
• The trio have an encounter with sirens, much like Odysseus and his crew did, at a river, where they are entranced by their singing.
• Everett is a glib and deceptive man, not only willing to lie to accomplish his goals, but preferring deception to a fair fight. Odysseus is a similar sort of "hero," more heroic in the sense that he was able to accomplish great deeds with the force of his wit than heroic in the sense of lofty morals or ambitions.
• Everett and his companions sneak into the Stokes campaign dinner disguised as old men, mirroring how Odysseus is able to enter his suitor-filled home by being transformed into an old man.
• The line of nooses during the hanging scene at the end of the film roughly mirrors the line of axe heads Odysseus shoots an arrow through before slaying Penelope's suitors.
• Everett is saved in the end by his acknowledgment of his own personal pride and through an appeal to a higher power. The Odyssey presents Odysseus' fatal flaw as hubris, or extreme pride (even believing in oneself without acknowledging the help of the gods), and Odysseus has to make peace with the gods before he is allowed to return to Ithaca.

Subtitle:Other allusions The title of the film is a reference to the 1941 Preston Sturges film Sullivan's Travels, in which the protagonist (a director) wants to direct a film about the Great Depression called O Brother, Where Art Thou? that will be a "commentary on modern conditions, stark realism, the problems that confront the average man." Lacking any experience in this area, the director sets out on a journey to experience the human suffering of the average man but is sabotaged by his anxious studio. The film has some similarity in tone to Sturges' film, including scenes with prison gangs and a black church choir. The prisoners at the picture show scene is also a direct homage to a nearly identical scene in Sturges' film."Sullivan's Travels (1941)". Retrieved 2007-11-08.

Student7 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Odyssey References really need revision

I have noticed that many references to the Odyssey are only half correct or half understood.

The word for cyclops in Greek is "Kuklopes." The Ku Klux Klan originally derived their name from the cyclops. Big Dan, Ulysses romantic rival, Menelaus' political opponent and the 100 Suitors are combined as klan members because they all lack "Xenia," or hospitality. The blinding of the cyclops occurs at the same time as the suitors meeting in the woods because this links them thematically. As the story is also about the American south, the use of the klan in the narrative suggests that the new American south must reject the racism of the old American south.

The Baptism scene in the film is not primarily the Lotos Eaters (though religion being the Opiad of the masses does evoke the Lotos Eaters). The scene is foremost a representation of the episode on Skeria Island when Nausikaa is told by Athena to venture down to the beach to do her washing. There she happens upon the Odysseus, sleeping naked on the beach. The baptism relates to Odysseus own "rebirth" in the story, as he has just spent seven years in the smooth caves of Calypso, then ventured through a storm at sea to finally shed his cloak and swim for Skeria Island. Homer's imagery of rebirth is unmistakable and the Coen brothers have connected this ancient narrative device to the Evangelical practice of baptism. Delmar and Pete are reborn because they are part of this film's Odysseus/Ulysses and Ulysses Everett McGill will himself be baptized when he divests himself of his narcissism and is washed clean by the waters of the bursting of the dam at the elliptical end of the film.

The scene with Odysseus men wearing beards at the end of the film certainly recalls the Trojan Horse ploy, but it is primarily the Bow Contest, when Odysseus appears to have become an old man by Athena's magic and then shoots his arrow through twelve rings. In the film's narrative the bow has turned into the "bow" of a fiddle and Odysseus the sing of his tale has become Ulysses the singer of a popular country song.

The picture show scene is the land of the dead.

The Poseidon character is also the "devil" because both are connected by the trident or pitchfork. He is the chief representation of inescapable fate in the film.

"Tommy Johnson" is an allusion to Robert Johnson the American blues singer who is said to have sold his soul to the devil. Poseidon exacting that debt suggests that the idea of "Moira" or Fate is being combined with the American Evangelical sense of the "curse of Adam."

The Suitors scene or Klan Meeting is obviously an allusion to The Wizard of Oz's scene at the Witch's castle. The Coen Brothers wish to combine the American film "Odyssey," as epitomized by Sullivan's Travels and The Wizard of Oz with the Homeric Odyssey.

There are many more points of intersection worth noting. The "Gopher" village that Pete and Demar devour connects them to the Laestrygonians and the Cyclops, and the Seven Daughters of Ulysses seem to recall the "seven sisters" or The Pleides. They may also represent the nine Muses, if combined with the other women in the play.

Steve Dooner sdooner@comcast.net

All of this is just your unreferenced speculation and original research. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Similarities between the film and The Odyssey

This section is a mess. Most of this is unreferenced, with citation needed tags peppered throughout, and what references there are are inadequate. Surely there has been discussion of these matters in reliable and notable sources. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The opening credits quote from a translation of The Odyssey by Homer. The similarities between O Brother, Where Art Thou? and The Odyssey are numerous, ranging from the obvious to the obscure. While the Coens did not originally intend to base the film on Homer's epic, Joel Coen has been quoted as saying:

“ It just sort of occurred to us after we’d gotten into it somewhat that it was a story about someone going home, and sort of episodic in nature, and it kind of evolved into that. It’s very loosely and very sort of unseriously based on The Odyssey. ”

While there are certain episodes that closely resemble the Odyssey, the plot pays little attention to the timeline of the classical poem and mixes some of the episodes together. In the film, for example, the episodes of the Trojan Horse and Ulysses' homecoming both take place in the same scene, while in the poem there is a space of 10 years between these events.

A reviewer has responded that there were just too many similarities between the film and the epic poem for the resemblance to be as casual as the Coens suggest, and that they merely use the word "loosely" to give them greater poetic license in their reworking of the story.

Ulysses is Odysseus, whose main problem, from the classic poem, was his narcissism, represented here by McGill's dependence on "Dapper Dan" hair pomade, hair nets and combs. His character also shares the intelligence and verbal ability of Odysseus of the epic poem.

McGill's wife "Penny" is Penelope. Her beau Waldrip represents the suitors who descend during Odysseus' absence. The Sheriff represents Poseidon, who, in the classic poem, pursued Odysseus in anger after the adventurer blinded the Poseidon's son, the Cyclops Polyphemus.

John Goodman's character, "Big Dan Teague," who wears an eyepatch and crunches the bones of his chicken thighs when he eats, represents the Cyclops.

Pete and Delmar are Odysseus' faithful crew, and later, the goatherd and swineherd.

"Menelaus" Pappy O'Daniel is King Menelaus, who required the help of Odysseus to beat the Trojans during the war that ensued after Menelaus' wife, Helen, eloped with Paris. Pappy O'Daniel is losing his re-election bid against Homer Stokes, (who represents the Trojans), just as, in the epic poem, Menelaus was losing the war against the Trojans until Odysseus and his band agreed to help.

In the film, Ulysses and his Soggy Bottom Boys show up at Stokes' election dinner to sing for the crowd, thereby allowing Menelaus "Pappy" O'Daniel to enter and, seizing the moment, to take credit for the entertainment. At the same moment, Homer Stokes is unmasked as a Ku Klux Klansman and the crowd runs him out of town on a rail. This scene represents the episode of the Trojan Horse when Odysseus and his men infiltrate Troy, giving Menelaus' army the break they need to win the war. The disguises worn by McGill and his Soggy Bottom Boys when they arrive at Stokes' dinner represent the Trojan Horse ruse.

Odysseus was also in disguise when he finally returned to his wife Penelope and killed her suitors.

There are other, more obscure references. The railroad represent the sea. In the beginning of the film, as the men start their journey, the blind railroad man represents Tiresias, who foretells much of Odysseus' journey in the epic poem. Tommy may be Odysseus' son Telemachus.

They are baptized in the river by the Lotus Eaters.

Circe is combined with the Sirens, and depicted as washerwomen who lure the heroes with their singing, get the travelers drunk (instead of drugged) and appear to turn Pete into a frog (instead of a pig).

Hard to argue with deleting it all and leaving it that way. We just get too many "speculations" all unsourced, of course.

Having said that Coen's remark is largely regarded to give them some leeway in the plot. It was never intended to be the meticulous opus that James Joyce's book was.

So the relationship is there, but without cites, hard to know when to stop. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point, I think we are better off without it. If some sources can be found, we can revisit the issue, but I doubt that will happen. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Comedy?

Though there are a few funny faces and unusual situations in the film, I'd argue the movie is more of a serious adventure than a comedy in the same way that Homer's The Odyssey is not a comedy. By calling it a comedy, it is belittled. Though some elements of satire and irony, I'd recommend it be described as an "adventure" or "satyre" but not "comedy". Mikecronis (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please use four tildes at the completion of your comments on a discussion page. That will sign your name and tell us who you are. Thanks.

Editors are restricted from "deciding" what is what in an encyclopedia. This is all done from scholarly, reliable sources. I may think something is "tragic," but if reliable sources describe it as "drama", that is what goes in the article. It is not our personal opinions, which are forbidden by Wikipedia policy on WP:POV and several others. Student7 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's only 'belittled' by calling it a comedy if you assume that comedy is inferior to other kinds of stories. 109.153.195.182 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Time frame

Easily one of my favorite modern films. One aspect of it that I've never seen discussed - here or elsewhere - is the time frame in which the story takes place. At the start, it's made clear that there are only three or four days until the site of Everett's cabin will be flooded. Yet, within that very brief time, the Soggy Bottom Boys' recording becomes a huge hit, Pete is recaptured, returned to the chain gang, and rescued...in short, it seems like much more 3-4 days worth of stuff happens. (It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I'm thinking that at least three evenings are part of the story - in Cousin Wash's hayloft, in the woods when Tommy is scared off, and the night of the klan rally and campaign rally. Anything more than that puts us over four days. I don't have a problem with this from a story-telling POV...I think it's wonderful...but I would love to know if anyone has ever expounded on this...if there is something deeper at work.... I'm having trouble logging in currently, but my user name is PurpleChez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.65.34 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)