Italian Film Production

Post here about Alexander in film, TV, radio, other websites, YouTube etc.

Moderator: pothos moderators

kennyxx

Italian Film Production

Post by kennyxx »

Has any one read or know any details about an Italian film production of Alexander The Great.The film is listed as been in production. Written by a guy called Johny Hartman. and Produced by Daehong Urim. The snippet says its 80 mimutes long those are the only details i have. Any info on pothos?kenny
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Italian Film Production

Post by amyntoros »

I think this is an animated production, Kenny. Try this link to a PDF file - the info on the Alexander anime (in 3-D, no less!) is on page 12:http://www.mondotv.it/THEATRICAL_01_38.pdfBest regards,Amyntoros
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

And our survey said ...

Post by marcus »

"Few man's destiny becomes known history. Alexander The Great is such a man. Born under the lucky star of the Greek god Zeus, the prince of Macedonia is as brilliant as he is brazen. Inspired by his mentor Aristotle, Young Alexander wants to become a hero like the legendary Achilles. When his father King Philip is killed by the devious emperor Darius, the young king assembles an army and sets out for revenge. On his journey to catch his archenemy, he fights many battles and conquers most of the known world. But while Alexander stays in
mysterious Egypt, Darius is building new weapons and an enormous army. Only with the help of his friends and the blessing of the gods can Alexander
defeat Darius in an epic battle. A battle that teaches our fearless hero that forgiveness is more powerful than revenge."Well, that's the blurb ... sounds rubbish!ATBMarcus
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by Paralus »

No, actually it sounds like the pie-in-the-sky, civilising world unifier, cultured cuddly conqueror and abassador of art and altruism that some still choose to cling to.Too right it's a cartoon. A Steve Bell Guardian classic by the sound of it.Paralus
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by marcus »

I'm always surprised that no-one did an Alexander version of Ulysses 31, that great 80s classic:http://www.sfxb.co.uk/animated/ulysses31.htmlNow that *was* great ... so perhaps I'm being hasty and this Italian effort won't be rubbish after all.ATBMarcus
Efstathios

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by Efstathios »

Some still choose to cling to?You mean some are the rest of the world except Ian Worthington,Bosworth,and some others?Even most of the Iranians dont have such beliefs about Alexander (Alexander butcher of nations e.t.c)except some nationalists who believe themselves to be Persians.(And maybe they are). And even the persians themselves back in those times did not believe that about Alexander.That's why in Babylon they welcomed him with rose-pedals.Because he treated well those that he conquered. And now a Worthington comes after thousands of years to tell us that all these people threw rose-pedals to Alexander and treated him like a liberator because he butchered them and was a megalomaniac egoistic little boy?Do you know what we say in my country about the fox?(the animal).The things that the fox cannot reach she makes them hanging(in order to reach them easier),which means that some people try to diminish other people or other people's achievements because they just cannot reach them. I know that you dont believe that Alexander was a butcher of nations and all that stuff,but i am sure that you agree with many of the Bosworth-Worthington statements.In the past we have disagreed about the numbers of the persian army and other stuff like that.Anyway,if you want to we can analyse Plutarch's statements about Alexander in "about the virtue and luck of Alexander" and you will see that they are almost all true.What we cannot see if it is true or not are his intentions.But we can assume judging by the events what were his intentions.For example Plutarch says that the persian children learned Homer.Why would Alexander make the children of the persians to learn Homer?Lets discuss about this
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by amyntoros »

Efstathios, there are a great many people, scholars and students alike, who do not see Alexander as a GÇ£civilizing world unifierGÇ¥, and their views were not all formed from reading Bosworth and Worthington GÇô an honest examination of the histories will suffice. You say that in Babylon they GÇ£welcomed him with rose-pedals because he treated well those that he conquered.GÇ¥ What about all the cities that chose to resist him? Did he smile and call for a meeting to tell them how much they were supposedly going to profit from his beneficence, and then walk away if the people werenGÇÖt convinced? No GÇô instead there were any number of variations on a theme . . . attack and occasionally destroy the city . . . slaughter the able-bodied men. . . . sell the women and children into slavery. . . force (and enforce) Macedonian rule upon the occupants . . . remove the citizens and resettle them in one of his new cities or Macedonian garrisons so that AlexanderGÇÖs men would have someone to serve them . . . take hostages and leave garrisons to ensure that those left GÇ£in chargeGÇ¥ of cities and satraps would not revolt when the army moved on, etc. Some of those who fought against Alexander were treated better than others, yes, but it depended on the political situation and whether Alexander thought it more beneficial for him to show generosity and forgiveness, or whether he needed to set an example for all others who dared to defy him. I agree that those who succumbed to his rule were quite often treated with remarkable munificence, but the means to that end were those of a conqueror and not a *missionary*! Those who do not accept that Alexander was on a mission of world peace and unification (for the benefit of the conquered peoples!) do not necessarily see him as a GÇ£butcher of nations.GÇ¥ History is not that black and white GÇô there are a great many shades of grey.One more point GÇô any Persians who learned Greek did so because it made sense in order to better their existence. Most Macedonians were not going to learn Persian. If you wanted or needed to communicate with your local rulers then youGÇÖd better get to know the lingo, otherwise youGÇÖd be excluded from any small position of authority or trade. In those circumstances, any wise man would have his children learn the language of his conquerors.Best regards,Amyntoros
Jim A

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by Jim A »

Linda, I would generally agree that ATG was not Ghandi or Martin Luther King in Armor and Sword conquering others for there own good to bring about a world utopia of love and friendship . On the other had did he occasionally commit what some in todays world would call war crimes.Perhaps but the point ishis motives.Were they strategic or just an excuse for blood shed?attack and occasionally destroy the city . . . slaughter the able-bodied men. . . . sell the women and children into slavery. . . force (and enforce) Macedonian rule upon the occupants . Esspecially in the back country of Bactria the above was true.On the other hand he was marching thru a unfamiliar territory and his tired troops were probaly not in the mood to fight a guarilla war with hostile tribes.Instead he choose to distroy cities that were key to suporting unrest ( in modern terms harboring terrorist) in a brutal manner thus setting ruthless example.One could also state that perhaps he needed the loot to supply his army with provision.Did such actions help save lives in his army? He had more a responsibility to his troops well being then the natives as does any military leader.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by marcus »

Indeed, and we could argue both sides equally well until the end of time!It should also be remembered that he was acting within his time. That is not to say that every military leader would have done the same, but at the same time he was not unique in his methods. Over time the Romans were guilty of the same - or much worse.However, there is nothing to say that we should *not* judge him by our standards (even if it's not really what historians should be doing).ATBMarcus
Efstathios

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by Efstathios »

Linda: You once told me while we were debating on the homosexuality-bisexuality matter not to see the ancient era with a modern prism.Well the same thing applies here too.We are always talking about a conqueror,because Alexander was primarily a conqueror. Imagine how Plutarch saw Alexander.Plutarch that lived in an era not so far away than this of Alexander's and with the roman empire's examples pretty fresh.Throughout all of the Caesars,Attilas,,Kaligulas e.t.c Alexander shined. It was common for a conqueror to wipe out cities and sell the citizens as slaves.Alexander was no exception.He was a conqueror afterall.But there is no comparisson between him and the rest.And i think we agree on that.That's why Plutarch raises Alexander so much and justifies most of his actions.Of course he too (as well as the rest of the writers)does not justify some things that Alexander did,like killing Cleitus and Parmenion. See,Plutarch with his 1st century a.d perspective and considering the circumstances found the destruction of Thebes somewhat inevitable.You see we are talking about 2 events in Alexander's military campaign,Thebes and Tyre.While in other conquerors' campaigns we are talking about the entire campaign ,or about 30 events.(I dont count the villages in India because these were special circumstances where the army was often being attacked by totally primitive tribes). When we talk about Alexander's moralia,or when we discuss about his campaign goals we must not see him solely but also make a comparisson with the other conquerors of the ancient times and of course by considering the special circumstances of his times.Afterall,Plutarch's work was based in comparissons. You said that Alexander used to sell the women and children of the cities that he destroyed (Thebes and Tyre mainly)as slaves,and killed the stronger of the men.The first is a historical fact,about the second i dont know.You may point me to the proper quote if there is one,i cant remember anything about the stronger of the men now.But anyhow,if Alexander hadnt done these things,would he have been the Alexander of 330 b.c?And remember that he did that mainly in 2 occasions,while some Caesars and barbarian conquerors didnt spare anyone in some occasions.So,we must firstly make a comparrison and then also consider the special ethics and customs of the era.
Efstathios

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by Efstathios »

Marcus: History does not judge.History simply tells the events.Plutarch judged in his moralia.But his moralia was not history. (It was going to go something like Aristotelian logic here,but i am too tired now to make a sequence,so i will leave the quantic-Aristotelic conclusion for tomorrow :D)
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by amyntoros »

Hi Efstathios,Please see my response to Jim above because it also answers your post to some degree. I won't argue with you that Alexander had excellent qualities rarely found in a ruler, but the fact remains that he was still a conqueror. I'm not meaning to discuss the nature of Alexander here - I only want to clarify his purpose in taking Persia and other lands. Any benefits reaped by the conquered peoples came about as a consequence of AlexanderGÇÖs rule *after* his conquest GÇô and here discussions of his nature and GÇ£virtueGÇ¥ are applicable. However, these benefits were not then, nor now, the reason for Alexander being in Asia in the first place. There can be no such thing as altruistic conquest - that is, quite simply, an oxymoron. Best regards,Amyntoros
Aaack! Three more posts since I started to write this! Any response will have to wait until after dinner. :-)
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by Paralus »

G'day Efstathios.You've got part of the situation sorted there. Plutarch wrote some four hundred years after the events that he relates. He had access to more sources (directly) that do we today. He chose some and not others. Occasionally, he relates their names and his reasons. Ditto Arrian.The Greek view of the conqueror at the time of his death (and for a considerable period after) was best enunciated by Demades when he famously declared that if the conqueror were really dead "the stench of the corpse would have filled the whole world long before." This reflected the views of the Greek philosophical schools that GÇô almost wholly GÇô saw Alexander as a wonton conqueror and destroyer of liberty, as well as the Greek's prized autonomy of thought and action, little in control of himself and much given to his passions. Not to mention the fact that he was a god.This view persisted for some time despite an opposing view that lauded the conqueror as some Hellenic cultural ambassador who set off to bring the world under Macedonian control for the seemingly entirely altruistic purpose of making all peoples one.The result is that we have the "Vulgate" tradition, a tradition of some "hostility" to Alexander and a more measured tradition of a more idealised Alexander typified by Arrian's rather apologetic approach. The latter as a reaction to the former.As well, the "Greek" writers (Plutarch in particular) are writing in a time of the Pax Romana. Rome rules the world and has achieved everything the idealised Alexander set out to do. Plutarch thus raises his Alexander up as he ideal monarch who had done it all before Rome. Arrian too has a bit of this. Alexander is the Greek hero in a totally Roman world.The bottom line is that untill some documentation closer to the events is discovered (a full Clietarchus or an original Callisthenes for example), we are at best attempting to recover the nature of what was the first world conqueror from reasonably hostile or rosy second and third hand accounts. All of which are interpreting the varied sources they had at their disposal through their (at the time) modern eyes.Paralus.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by marcus »

Absolutely, that was my point. Or rather, history should not judge, but historians very often do!ATBMarcus
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: And our survey said ...

Post by Paralus »

"The result is that we have the "Vulgate" tradition, a tradition of some "hostility" to Alexander and a more measured tradition of a more idealised Alexander typified by Arrian's rather apologetic approach. The latter as a reaction to the former."Paralus note to Paralus: never write after being party to two bottles of good Australian Shiraz over lunch GÇô things don't always read as intended. That paragraph better rendered as:The result is that we have the "Vulgate" tradition; a tradition of some "hostility" to Alexander; and, a more measured tradition of a more idealised Alexander typified by Arrian's rather apologetic approach. The latter as a reaction to the hostile tradition.Thus we should have the "vulgate": a tradition of GÇô essentially GÇô "hero worship" where Alexander accomplishes great deeds in an altruistic fashion (Diodorus/Curtius). We have the hostile tradition of the drunkard given to all manner of excess (Trogus/Seneca) and, by the time of the first and second centuries AD, something of a mixture of both which leans heavily to the idealised, though, apologetic approach (Plutarch esp. and Arrian).Reading the original paragraph this morning gives the impression that the vulgate is a hostile tradition GÇô the opposite of course. No more composing post red!Paralus
Post Reply