DVD: "Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut"

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

Moderator: pothos moderators

karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

Okay, I have to answer this first: Gladiator -- not much of a story? Guy has his entire family killed and his own life destroyed, and slowly works himself back, aiming all the way for revenge? That's a heck of a story, even if you can predict the end (anything but the predictable ending is unbearable, which always makes for sufficient suspense).

In my opinion there are clear and simple reasons why Gladiator succeeded so much better than Alexander (other than the fact that the hero in Gladiator was straight). I'll lay them out for you.

I agree totally that there are a million details that would make wonderful scenes -- Alexander pouring the water out of the helmet in the desert is a personal favourite -- but a movie or a book has to work as a whole, not just a series of scenes, or else people won't turn the page or stay awake in their theatre seats. What was the main complaint about Stone's Alexander, other than the right-on-cue braying of the homophobes? That it was not coherent -- that it didn't work as a whole. Read the reviews and over and over you'll see the same word: "mess."

Are you familiar with Joseph Campbell's framework for the hero's journey? How he has to go into darkness from the beginning, and prevail against increasingly severe testing (making use of the other standard elements), to emerge the hero -- supplying the increasing tension, climax and denouement that are standard in plots? It's a trope that survives across millennia. Predictable, yes, but people still thirst for it -- over and over and over. Gladiator followed the basic framework, as did the three original Star Wars movies (Lucas had Campbell's book at his elbow while he did the screenplay). Lord of the Rings... Wizard of Oz... The heroic Greek myths such as Theseus and the Minotaur, Perseus, Jason, etc. ... each Harry Potter book/movie... I could name scores more. Once your eyes are open to it, you see it everywhere.

But despite Alexander's hero status, his life did not follow it except episodically. Each battle, each setback, is a mini-version, but over the whole course, he doesn't go into darkness at the start, his situation does not become worse; instead he goes into gradually increasing glory. When he does go into darkness -- the killing of Kleitos, the army insisting on turning back, the Mallian arrow, etc. -- it doesn't happen in a clear and well-defined way, so that some argue it didn't happen at all -- and he doesn't prevail in the end, as the classic hero does, but dies. To try to get the tension/climax/denouement pattern out of it, you simply cannot tell it linearly, you have to twist it around into knots as Oliver Stone did. What is the climax of Alexander Revisited? The assassination of Philip, paired with the killing of Kleitos -- though you could also argue that it's the point where Alexander gets shot and Boukephalos gets killed, leading to the denouement of the army turning back, though even that is not a final denouement. See, I'm not even sure, and normally you can tell where the climax of a movie is.

Stone was also trying to follow the tragic trope -- a natural, with Alexander dying so young -- but the resolution of his death doesn't lead right off the climax as it does in that trope. So it turned out, as the reviewers say, messy. (A related factor about tragic endings, which might have a lot to do with why Alexander did better outside of North America: statistically, on average, Americans like happy endings. This is common knowledge in the publishing industry. They also don't like things that are dark, except in the horror genre. I kind of found this out the hard way.)

It's also a fact of storycraft that you have to make your audience care about your character(s), and that is not possible without their motivations being clear (which they are, of course, in the hero's journey trope). Russell Crowe's character's motivation is searingly clear throughout Gladiator, yes? But with Alexander, it's not. What drives the guy across the world? There's a hint that it's to run away from his mother, but that's not convincing. Why is conquest so important to him? We're never told. Why is Hephaistion so important to him? We're never told that either. People wrote repeatedly in reviews, "I don't care about Alexander or any of the other characters." The hero in the classic hero's journey we always care about, because we can easily relate to his situation. But Alexander's life doesn't follow that.

Yes, there are too many events to contain in a single movie, but that's not true of a novel, or three novels, as has often been done -- and yet, more often than not, they fail. If Alexander's life had followed the hero's journey pattern, a movie director would be able to skim over events quickly and we'd still understand their meaning and the thing would still work as a whole, because human beings have an almost instinctive understanding of that story. But it doesn't, so you can't.
The subject matter of a movie can be as pedestrian or as fresh and exciting as one seeks to make it. There's plenty of Alexander's life outside of battle, to include his pilgrimage to Siwah [etc]
Well, here I think you're agreeing with the first part of my point, which is that to get something sufficiently interesting, you have to look at his life outside of the battles. Because the story of his battles is one win after another -- so that after a few it's repetitive -- and a slow and steady increase of his power. Let me put it to you this way: if a businessperson from a middle-class background works hard, markets well, makes good decisions, and steadily expands to having assets of $10 million, it's a great career and much admired. But does the story of each strategic move, acquisition and expansion make the paper? No. If someone dirt poor wins $10 million in a lottery, on the other hand, it does.

Or -- let's translate the hero's journey into military terms. Hero's country goes into the darkness by being invaded by baddie empire, and conquered, or all but. Hero raises army, and through his and the army's heroism, prevails in the ultimate test by taking the country back and perhaps even conquering the baddie empire so as to rescue its people from their nasty emperor and remove the danger permanently. We have, of course, a real-life example in WWII (at least from the Allied perspective) -- and think of how many successful novels and movies, not to mention non-fiction works with big sales figures, came out of that.

But that's not the shape of Alexander's campaigns. Makedonia was not an underdog when he came to power, even if some advisors thought it was, due to the death of the man who'd led it to success. The army hadn't up and died, or lost any of its bravery or skill -- all it needed was a general of equal caliber to the one it had lost, and it had that. (Philip's early story is closer to the hero's journey, actually... with Makedonia weak enough that he was a hostage in Thebes as a youth, his brothers' throne usurped by a regent whom they then had to kill, his two older brothers getting killed so he ended up king, and then him coming back so spectacularly... jeez... someone should do a novel or a movie about that. But the poor guy is always overshadowed by his darned golden boy.)

I should really say that I actually don't disagree with you that a good Alexander movie -- no, trilogy -- how about BBC miniseries? (too bad Mel Gibson cacked out on the 10-hour HBO one he was going to do, based on Renault) -- is possible. Never say never... the moment you say something's impossible, someone comes along and does it ;) Book or books, for sure -- I have to think it's possible, or quit writing mine. What I'm saying is that there are very big natural, structural obstacles, and Stone, though he made an admirable try, didn't steer his ship around them... the only one who ever really has is Renault. (Oh, and Pseudo-Kallisthenes or whoever wrote the Alexander Romance, but that was a work in a different genre (fantasy) than we're talking about (historical).)

More anon. I have to thank everyone, Phoebus especially, for this conversation as I'm using it to order and elucidate my own thoughts...

Warmly,
Karen
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

karen wrote:Okay, I have to answer this first: Gladiator -- not much of a story?
My point is that it featured a very simplistic, predictable story. Please don't tell me that, by the time Maximus was weeping over the corpses of his wife and son, you didn't know Commodus was going to suffer a grisly death at the hands of his general-turned-gladiator? With that in mind, I reject the idea that an American audience (the same audience that is traditionally responsible for a lion's share of box office takes and around whom blockbuster movies are designed) would be turned off by Alexander's life-in-a-movie as "too military". ;)
... a movie or a book has to work as a whole, not just a series of scenes, or else people won't turn the page or stay awake in their theatre seats.
This is only a matter of conjecture, but I have no doubt that this could have been done with Alexander. If anything, the reaction of so many critics to what they perceived such a jumbled work shows that a better result was expected.

Where the structuring of the movie (the hero's path) is concerned, we'll have to agree to disagree. :)
Each battle, each setback, is a mini-version, but over the whole course, he doesn't go into darkness at the start, his situation does not become worse; instead he goes into gradually increasing glory.
I believe this has to do with the format used. In a single movie, yes, what you describe would have made for a rushed, episodic mess--whatever order one wishes to throw the episodes in, as Stone showed. ;)
(A related factor about tragic endings, which might have a lot to do with why Alexander did better outside of North America: statistically, on average, Americans like happy endings. This is common knowledge in the publishing industry. They also don't like things that are dark, except in the horror genre. I kind of found this out the hard way.)
Ever hear of Empire Strikes Back? Or Revenge of the Sith? ;)
But with Alexander, it's not. What drives the guy across the world?
And that's what Stone's problem was. He didn't take a stand in some issues; but he took one on others. The ones he took it on were details; the ones he skipped were the central themes of the story. My opinions follow.
There's a hint that it's to run away from his mother, but that's not convincing. Why is conquest so important to him? We're never told.
And Stone simply ignored the most obvious, and cinematically appealing, premise: that the son of a warlike father from a warlike line of kings of a warlike nation who was raised on the Iliad and, probably, the nation of manifest destiny, might just turn out to be warlike himself. That, given the most devastating army and military system hitherto devised by his people, he might follow the path set out for him.
Why is Hephaistion so important to him? We're never told that either.
And here's the problem: we are. At least we are in the histories. That Alexander and Hephaestion were dear friends is the irreconcilible truth. That they were lovers is up to the individual's interpretation as they read the surviving record and according to their perception of the prevailing sexual customs of the time. Stone knew that, just as he knew his audience. It's sad that the majority of movie-goers tend to be turned off by something that doesn't meet their own sexual proclivity, but there it is.
People wrote repeatedly in reviews, "I don't care about Alexander or any of the other characters." The hero in the classic hero's journey we always care about, because we can easily relate to his situation. But Alexander's life doesn't follow that.
Hardly any classical figure's life reads in a way that we might "care" about. No one really knew how Leonidas felt, but Frank Miller & co. plugged in lines, attitudes, etc., they felt were compatible with the surviving Spartan image. Stone had enough to pattern his Alexander personality off of Plutarch alone. Now, we can argue about historical integrity all day, but the bottom line is that Hollywood cinema is entertainment first and foremost.
Well, here I think you're agreeing with the first part of my point, which is that to get something sufficiently interesting, you have to look at his life outside of the battles. Because the story of his battles is one win after another -- so that after a few it's repetitive -- and a slow and steady increase of his power.
I was arguing this from the very get go. Our only disagreement, I suspect, is that I believe that it was (is) possible to make a decent movie out of both the out-of-battle and in-battle parts of Alexander's life. I simply feel that Stone made poor decisions both in what he chose to depict and how he went about depicting it.

RE: underdogs and they like... again, Hollywood has shown that audiences can and will ignore this when it comes to a good movie. No one went to "Saving Private Ryan" thinking that the US armed forces were inferior to the German ones in the battles that would be depicted. They went to see tough fights and gritty scenes--not necessarily "even" matchups.

In closing, yes, I do believe we agree on more points than not. And it's been a pleasure sharing. :)

P
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

Morning Phoebus, et al:
Phoebus wrote:My point is that it featured a very simplistic, predictable story. Please don't tell me that, by the time Maximus was weeping over the corpses of his wife and son, you didn't know Commodus was going to suffer a grisly death at the hands of his general-turned-gladiator?
I never said it wasn't predictable or even simplistic -- just compelling. I said that the hero's journey format is predictable but nonetheless extremely popular, because it taps into something in the human psyche. (Maybe I didn't quite say that last part, but I am saying it now.) And the success of Gladiator was at least in part due to that.
I reject the idea that an American audience (the same audience that is traditionally responsible for a lion's share of box office takes and around whom blockbuster movies are designed) would be turned off by Alexander's life-in-a-movie as "too military". ;)
I never wrote that either. What I wrote was that writers/movie-makers cannot concentrate purely on the military aspect of Alexander's life, and create something good, because a consistent string of successes is too dull. How can I say one predictable thing (repeated victories) is boring and will be rejected by audiences, but another (the hero's journey) isn't and won't? Because repetition -- of anything -- soon becomes tedious. Over a half hour, a single Star Trek episode with its usual structure of conflict/tension/climax/denouement is satisfying (assuming you like Star Trek). Captain Kirk and gang always overcome. If you strung 20 short versions of Star Trek episodes into one movie, however, people would flee the theatre in droves. Because they expect the conflict/tension/climax/denouement format over the whole length of the movie.
This is only a matter of conjecture, but I have no doubt that this could have been done with Alexander. If anything, the reaction of so many critics to what they perceived such a jumbled work shows that a better result was expected.
Well, it means a better result was hoped for, and required for a good review. It's not the job of reviewers to take into consideration the relative difficulty of the source material, though, so they generally don't. Their job is to give viewers an idea of whether they're likely to have a satisfying movie experience or not. Besides, as I said before, you look at Alexander's life and on the surface it looks like it would make an amazing movie.

I think what reviewers most likely expected from Stone, actually, was to see Alexander assassinated by a huge, complex and nefarious conspiracy ;)
I believe this has to do with the format used. In a single movie, yes, what you describe would have made for a rushed, episodic mess--whatever order one wishes to throw the episodes in, as Stone showed. ;)
Exactly. Every decision an artist makes has to respect the nature and structure and conventions of the format used. This is why you can fit all of Alexander's life into the novel format easier than into the movie format (even, imo, three novels vs. three movies). A movie creates sensory images on the screen and the speakers, while a novel creates them directly in the mind -- so the latter format lends itself much easier to summarization. You can make a whole event happen in a reader's mind just in a paragraph, if you choose the words well.
(On Americans preferring happy endings:) Ever hear of Empire Strikes Back? Or Revenge of the Sith? ;)
Neither of these are endings. Empire Strikes Back is the middle portion of an overarching story. At the end of that middle portion, the hero (Luke) is thrust much further into the dark (by the revelation that Darth Vader is his father), jacking up the tension a lot. Revenge of the Sith is a prequel, so we know how things are going to turn out. The movie that actually ends the full overarching story (so far)... Return of the Jedi -- ends happily, with the chief villain of both series coming to a satisfying end.
And Stone simply ignored the most obvious, and cinematically appealing, premise: that the son of a warlike father from a warlike line of kings of a warlike nation who was raised on the Iliad and, probably, the nation of manifest destiny, might just turn out to be warlike himself. That, given the most devastating army and military system hitherto devised by his people, he might follow the path set out for him.
Well, I think this is essentially what Stephen Pressfield set out to do. And while I haven't read his Alexander works -- I was turned off by a website excerpt -- I have it on good authority, which jibed with the website excerpt, that his Alexander comes across as a cold, impersonal fish -- not someone that a lot of people are going to like or care about. So I don't know that it is the most cinematically appealing premise. I mean, it might be for you... but I suspect it is not for the mass audience.

Besides... throughout history there have been scads of sons of warlike fathers in warlike nations bred on war -- and yet Alexander stands out, with a degree of drive and motivation, and a record of success, that is far out of the ordinary even among the most warlike of cultures. He did follow the path set out for him -- invade Persia -- but in doing so he went vastly beyond what anyone would have thought possible in that short a length of time, even with the Makedonian war machine. So -- why? What was his secret? People thought it was mysterious even in his own time. There must have been something behind it that was unique. Who can resist trying to figure it out? That means looking at the inner man for something in addition to his milieu.
And that's what Stone's problem was. He didn't take a stand in some issues; but he took one on others. The ones he took it on were details; the ones he skipped were the central themes of the story.
I'm curious as to what the central themes are in your opinion.
It's sad that the majority of movie-goers tend to be turned off by something that doesn't meet their own sexual proclivity, but there it is.
You know, I keep making a nod to homophobia as a factor in the bombing of Alexander... but imo it's not the main reason. I think it would have been forgiven by far more people if the movie had just been a better movie. Part of why I think that is the critical and commercial success of Brokeback Mountain, which, like Gladiator, won more than one Oscar, despite the usual right-on-cue braying.
People wrote repeatedly in reviews, "I don't care about Alexander or any of the other characters."
Hardly any classical figure's life reads in a way that we might "care" about.
I was talking about Alexander as presented in the Stone movie.
No one really knew how Leonidas felt, but Frank Miller & co. plugged in lines, attitudes, etc., they felt were compatible with the surviving Spartan image. Stone had enough to pattern his Alexander personality off of Plutarch alone. Now, we can argue about historical integrity all day, but the bottom line is that Hollywood cinema is entertainment first and foremost.
I'm not quite sure what your point is here, so I don't know whether I agree or disagree, though I suspect judging by the rest of our conversation we're agreeing while suspecting that we disagree. Agree? Or disagree? ;)
I was arguing this from the very get go. Our only disagreement, I suspect, is that I believe that it was (is) possible to make a decent movie out of both the out-of-battle and in-battle parts of Alexander's life.
We must entirely agree then, because -- to repeat:
I should really say that I actually don't disagree with you that a good Alexander movie -- no, trilogy -- how about BBC miniseries? (too bad Mel Gibson cacked out on the 10-hour HBO one he was going to do, based on Renault) -- is possible. Never say never... the moment you say something's impossible, someone comes along and does it ;)
RE: underdogs and they like... again, Hollywood has shown that audiences can and will ignore this when it comes to a good movie. No one went to "Saving Private Ryan" thinking that the US armed forces were inferior to the German ones in the battles that would be depicted. They went to see tough fights and gritty scenes--not necessarily "even" matchups.
Must confess ignorance here. I haven't seen it.
In closing, yes, I do believe we agree on more points than not.
No we don't!

(Umm...... has anyone warned you that on this forum we occasionally cannot help but descend into short outbursts of Monty Python?)
And it's been a pleasure sharing. :)
I'll agree with that.

Warmly,
Karen
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

karen wrote:

Are you familiar with Joseph Campbell's framework for the hero's journey? How he has to go into darkness from the beginning, and prevail against increasingly severe testing (making use of the other standard elements), to emerge the hero -- supplying the increasing tension, climax and denouement that are standard in plots? It's a trope that survives across millennia. Predictable, yes, but people still thirst for it -- over and over and over. Gladiator followed the basic framework, as did the three original Star Wars movies (Lucas had Campbell's book at his elbow while he did the screenplay). Lord of the Rings... Wizard of Oz... The heroic Greek myths such as Theseus and the Minotaur, Perseus, Jason, etc. ... each Harry Potter book/movie... I could name scores more. Once your eyes are open to it, you see it everywhere.
I am, and I think you're dead right to point to the pattern of the hero journey as a reason for why it's so hard to tell Alexander's story in fiction or film. I am glad you have your own strategy for coping with this in your novel. (Not going to ask what it is, but I hope it works out for you!) You mentioned that Mary Renault had succeeded, and isn't one reason for that, the fact that in The Persian Boy in particular, the 'hero journey' is Bagoas'? She shows us all about Alexander, but at the same time, whether we are aware of it or not, we are inside a very familiar framework.
karen wrote:
To try to get the tension/climax/denouement pattern out of it, you simply cannot tell it linearly, you have to twist it around into knots as Oliver Stone did. What is the climax of Alexander Revisited? The assassination of Philip, paired with the killing of Kleitos -- though you could also argue that it's the point where Alexander gets shot and Boukephalos gets killed, leading to the denouement of the army turning back, though even that is not a final denouement. See, I'm not even sure, and normally you can tell where the climax of a movie is.
If it's linear, you've got no plot, and if it's non-linear, you lose people. You can't win, can you? I guess he could have focused with great intensity on one episode - Tyre, as you say, would be a brilliant choice, it's got everything in miniature and the structure lends itself to story-telling - or he could have done what Mary Renault did, and tell the story through the eyes of another character, and I heard him say he considered that, but that she had done it first. (Didn't stop him nicking *her* Bagoas, though, did it?)
Or he could do what he did do, and make it almost circular. The child is father to the man, and all that, and in our end is our beginning. He's almost forcing us to ignore the linear, in favour of themes, the myths in particular.I thought it was a clever approach, but I can see why people ended up feeling simply confused.
karen wrote:
Stone was also trying to follow the tragic trope -- a natural, with Alexander dying so young -- but the resolution of his death doesn't lead right off the climax as it does in that trope. So it turned out, as the reviewers say, messy. (A related factor about tragic endings, which might have a lot to do with why Alexander did better outside of North America: statistically, on average, Americans like happy endings. This is common knowledge in the publishing industry. They also don't like things that are dark, except in the horror genre. I kind of found this out the hard way.)
It's ironic, isn't it? The greatest hero, and you can't make a 'hero story' for him, because he was real, and real life is messy and doesn't fit the pattern. You could turn it into a 'rise and fall' sort of story, as Diodorus did, shaking his head over the powerful being corrupted, while enjoying himself hugely. But that's not a fair picture, either. A classic tragedy doesn't fit the bill, either. I do see a rise and fall in Stone's movie, though, on the personal level, and as he was concentrating so much on the interior man, that's quite an important part of it. It goes like this: swamped by two powerful peronalities, he nevertheless achieves his peace of mind, and becomes his own man, thanks to friendship, and everyone loves him. On this reading, the climax of the film is the balcony scene, where he tells Hephaistion he loves him. After that, he is distracted by others, who remove the peace of mind that only Hephaistion can give him, and after that, he can't 'bring' everyone with him any more, there are disagreements, and he is 'no longer loved by all.' It's more complicated than that, of course, but I think the pattern is there.
But it's a clever film, that can be read in many different ways. A love story is just one of them.

Fiona
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

Hi Fiona et al:
I am glad you have your own strategy for coping with this in your novel. (Not going to ask what it is, but I hope it works out for you!)
Thank you. Me too. :shock: I'm tempted to write more about it here, but I won't, not so much out of secrecy, but to avoid hijacking the thread with the sort of all-about-me-and-my-book blather that writers love to do much to the annoyance of everyone else ;)
You mentioned that Mary Renault had succeeded, and isn't one reason for that, the fact that in The Persian Boy in particular, the 'hero journey' is Bagoas'? She shows us all about Alexander, but at the same time, whether we are aware of it or not, we are inside a very familiar framework.
*** Persian Boy SPOILER WARNING ***

You know, I think you're right. Bagoas isn't exactly called to adventure, but forced into it, at the beginning when his family is killed, and he's castrated and sold into sexual slavery. He has tests, makes allies and enemies... then once with Alexander it becomes more like a standard "will she get the guy she wants" romance, except of course it's will he , ahh, sort of he, get the guy he wants, and his main enemy is Hephaistion. Then all of a sudden, when you're least expecting it, but towards the end, Bagoas gets his Holy Grail -- revenge on the Persian noble who killed his family and destroyed his life. The love story has a bittersweet ending of course -- Bagoas can never have Alexander to himself, and Alexander dies, but Bagoas still gets the other Holy Grail of knowing that Alexander loves him right to the end. A little more complex than the standard version, but I can see it, it's there.

*** end spoiler ***
If it's linear, you've got no plot, and if it's non-linear, you lose people. You can't win, can you? I guess he could have focused with great intensity on one episode - Tyre, as you say, would be a brilliant choice, it's got everything in miniature and the structure lends itself to story-telling -


But his ambition was to do the whole shootin' match.
...or he could have done what Mary Renault did, and tell the story through the eyes of another character, and I heard him say he considered that, but that she had done it first. (Didn't stop him nicking *her* Bagoas, though, did it?)
Ha ha, no. You know, a little while back Amyntoros told me that someone had sold an Alexander trilogy all written from Hephaistion's point of view. Contract was signed and it was ready to go, but then for some reason the whole thing was cancelled -- no publication. Too bad -- wouldn't that have been interesting?
Or he could do what he did do, and make it almost circular. The child is father to the man, and all that, and in our end is our beginning. He's almost forcing us to ignore the linear, in favour of themes, the myths in particular.I thought it was a clever approach, but I can see why people ended up feeling simply confused.
Especially by the theatrical version, which had the stuffing slashed out of it.
I do see a rise and fall in Stone's movie, though, on the personal level, and as he was concentrating so much on the interior man, that's quite an important part of it. It goes like this: swamped by two powerful personalities, he nevertheless achieves his peace of mind, and becomes his own man, thanks to friendship, and everyone loves him. On this reading, the climax of the film is the balcony scene, where he tells Hephaistion he loves him. After that, he is distracted by others, who remove the peace of mind that only Hephaistion can give him, and after that, he can't 'bring' everyone with him any more, there are disagreements, and he is 'no longer loved by all.' It's more complicated than that, of course, but I think the pattern is there.
If you look at it in terms of conflict/tension sources -- which are the little choochoos that make plots go -- what is there? Gaugamela at the beginning for some people maybe... it wasn't for me, and thus I would have preferred to see some more virtuoso fighting. Colin did all his own fighting but I think a stunt double well-trained in martial arts would have been much better... he just never looked like an expert. (Contrast with Brad Pitt in Troy.) But I digress. The conflict between his parents is the biggest conflict/tension source, followed by the conflict/tension between him and his army (of which the final battle where he gets shot is essentially the climax) that leads finally to them turning back, followed by the love triangle, or should I say rectangle, no, star with three points ;) I don't know that I agree that he comes to peace of mind, except fleetingly (e.g. during the procession into Babylon).

But the biggest conflict/tension is the one about his parents, and the question that torments him is, which parent is telling the truth and really loves me, and which is lying and really using me? Following on that, after Philip's death, it's 'Have I become king legitimately?' That question is, of course, never definitely settled, though there is something of a resolution in Philip's death -- at least now he only has to worry about one of them, and she's never actually threatened him with death, while Philip has -- and you get the impression that he destroys himself in the end because he is haunted to madness by it (think of Philip's post-mortem appearances, and Olympias as Medusa in the wine-cup) -- having done all he has done so as to try to prove his lovability.

So the big question is -- why didn't that work better? I found it fairly compelling as I wrote in a previous post, but I haven't read a single review that said, "Whoa, that issue with his parents, wow, did that touch me." Not one. Why weren't more people moved by it?

I know from many posts on this very forum that a major portion of the audience went to see an invincible Alexander kick butt in battle scenes, not a vulnerable one stress out about personal stuff. (Have you noticed that on this forum there's a pretty clear split down male/female lines? The gals like it more than the guys do... I think because gals generally like vulnerable male characters much more than guys do.)

But I wonder if there also isn't a plausibility/coherence problem. In the aftermath of Philip's death, Alexander sweats over whether he got the throne legitimately, but in the rest of the movie showing him acting as king, he never actually does seem conflicted about whether he should have it -- which is true to history. (Somewhere there should have been a shot of him watching hard-eyed as a child is torn from his mother's arms during the selling-into-slavery of a defeated city's survivors, because that would be reality. It's impossible to imagine Colin Farrell doing that, though, isn't it? His eyes were actually never hard, even when they should have been. I don't think he has it in him.)

And once Philip is dead and the question of which parent wins their battle is resolved, part of you wants to say, as his mother sort of does (and I did love her belting him across the face -- let's face it, she rivettingly stole every scene she was in, despite the Natasha accent and a lot of poorly-written lines): "Who cares how you got to be king? You're it now, you get to be your own man, just go with it." And that really seems to be what he agrees to do, with that final hug, and does in the rest of the movie, anyway. So in that sense, the main conflict/tension source is divorced from the rest of the story, and its power diluted due to that. That keeps the movie from hanging together as a whole.

As ever, my opinion.

Warmly,
Karen
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Post by Semiramis »

Phoebus wrote:And that's what Stone's problem was. He didn't take a stand in some issues; but he took one on others. The ones he took it on were details; the ones he skipped were the central themes of the story. My opinions follow.
Phoebus,

I totally have to agree with you here. Stone was unwilling to 'fill in the gaps' where history books don't give us an answer one way or another. While this is a good strategy for a documentary, I can see why it may not work for a movie for some. If you notice the Alexander documentaries, quite often they do take a firm stand on an issue and ignore other possibilities. This is done presumably not to confuse or bore the audience, which is what I'm told ended up happening in the Stone movie.

On the flipside, people criticize the Stone movie for the lack of historical accuracy. I'm not sure this is fair, given that Stone is unwilling to fabricate when it comes to the main themes. Yes, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela were merged into the same battle. The battles in India against Porus, the Malleans etc were merged and the settings changed completely to a jungle. Egypt was ignored entirely and Babylon only was shown instead of the four Achaemenid capitals. I can forgive all that, given the timespan of a movie.

However, important themes like Greek vs. Macedonia, Alexander vs. Philip, Olympias, Aristotle, Ancient sexual mores, "Persianizing" etc. were shown. As you say, they are more often than not left unresolved. I personally don't mind a movie that leaves you asking more questions than gives you answers.

One theme that was carried particularly well IMHO was the Macedonia vs. Asia issues (Greek vs Barbarian to the ancient writers). You see Aristotle's speech in the Mieza, which Alexander is already beginning to question. Later, you Alexander remembering Aristotle's teachings at that most decadent of Oriental places - the harem. In the balcony scene again you get the speech to Hephaistion about the need to civilize "these people", Hephaistion is quick to question Alexander about whether it's all more about his own ego. However, both Alexander and Hephaistion look decidedly orientalized themselves in the scene. So, again, things are not resolved one way or another at this point, or ever.

The further East he travels, the more merger between the armies. Almost a 180 degree on the orientalizing issue from Alexander when he chooses to marry Roxanne. From then on, only conflict with old friends, with Alexander, decidedly feeling at home in Asia. The scene where he bangs Cassander's head against the wall for showing disrespect to Asians has some historical basis. Stone also makes the argument that leads to the murder of Cleitus largely about Alexander's Orientalizing.

This, together with Ptolemy and Alexander realizing that Aristotle was wrong at the Hindu Kush mountains. Ptolemy nonchalantly declaring Egypt his home etc. left that story reasonably well tackled for me. You do get a kind of closure at Alexander's deathbed, where he declares he was only happy when on the march.

I personally felt that some of the questions about Alexander were as well-addressed as they were ever going to be without patronizing the viewer with simple answers about such a complex and enigmatic character. Others could've been dealt with better with more time. But over 3 hours is already getting quite long. :)

Fiona,
Fiona wrote:On this reading, the climax of the film is the balcony scene, where he tells Hephaistion he loves him. After that, he is distracted by others, who remove the peace of mind that only Hephaistion can give him, and after that, he can't 'bring' everyone with him any more, there are disagreements, and he is 'no longer loved by all.'
That's an great reading of it! I love it! I would say that the main conflict was between him and his army (and it's commanders). If you think of his army as Alexander's lover, the Beas scene is where that theme climaxes. "You break my heart, you men."

We go from Alexander being "loved by all"... to Parmenion being surprised at the Palace of Darius as Alexander unveils plans to carry on. We have the hard slog in through Central Asia to India and finally Craterus' plea to go home. The ugly insults, Alexander ordering his own men to be killed. Perhaps most importantly, Alexander being protected from his own army by the Persians. Finally declaring "I will go on with my Asians" and something to the effect of "you can tell people you abandoned me". Cleitus mentions the future army - the "30,000 pretty Persian boys" almost in the manner of the old lover being abandoned for the younger, more beautiful one. :D

Karen,
Karen wrote:Have you noticed that on this forum there's a pretty clear split down male/female lines? The gals like it more than the guys do... I think because gals generally like vulnerable male characters much more than guys do.
I have had a totally different experience out in the real world. The one person I know who really hated the movie with a passion because of the "oooh Hephaistion stuff" (her words) was female. My boyfriend loves it though. :)

Take care all :)
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

karen wrote:
You know, a little while back Amyntoros told me that someone had sold an Alexander trilogy all written from Hephaistion's point of view. Contract was signed and it was ready to go, but then for some reason the whole thing was cancelled -- no publication. Too bad -- wouldn't that have been interesting?
It certainly would. I recall hearing about this too, from someone in another group. Heartbreaking for the writer, just awful.
karen wrote:
If you look at it in terms of conflict/tension sources -- which are the little choochoos that make plots go -- what is there? Gaugamela at the beginning for some people maybe... it wasn't for me, and thus I would have preferred to see some more virtuoso fighting. Colin did all his own fighting but I think a stunt double well-trained in martial arts would have been much better... he just never looked like an expert. (Contrast with Brad Pitt in Troy.) But I digress. The conflict between his parents is the biggest conflict/tension source, followed by the conflict/tension between him and his army (of which the final battle where he gets shot is essentially the climax) that leads finally to them turning back, followed by the love triangle, or should I say rectangle, no, star with three points ;) I don't know that I agree that he comes to peace of mind, except fleetingly (e.g. during the procession into Babylon).
Agree about Brad Pitt in Troy, he looked like he knew how to fight, he looked like a killer. Colin, yes, I see what you mean. He didn't look that expert, did he? A good rider, though - he sits a horse well.
Tension, yes, and conflict, most necessary for plots, and the greatest source his parents. He never really escapes them, does he? He thinks he has, perhaps, but they come back to haunt him, like Olympias' face in the wine cup, and the apparition of Philip at Marakanda. So he might know some peace in so far as it's a love story, but not in so far as it's a circle, like those snakes that end up consuming themselves. There's no escape, there.
karen wrote:
But the biggest conflict/tension is the one about his parents, and the question that torments him is, which parent is telling the truth and really loves me, and which is lying and really using me? Following on that, after Philip's death, it's 'Have I become king legitimately?' That question is, of course, never definitely settled, though there is something of a resolution in Philip's death -- at least now he only has to worry about one of them, and she's never actually threatened him with death, while Philip has -- and you get the impression that he destroys himself in the end because he is haunted to madness by it (think of Philip's post-mortem appearances, and Olympias as Medusa in the wine-cup) -- having done all he has done so as to try to prove his lovability.
"Which am I, Hephaistion - weak or divine?' Yet really, you could say he was neither, but it was his parents who'd driven him to thinking like that. It reminds me of the question he asked at Siwah, the one we'll never know what it was. I suspect it had to do with his parentage, don't you?
Yet one thing you never see mentioned - if he did believe he was the son of Zeus, wouldn't that remove his right to be king? If he truly owed 'no blood debt to that man', then he wasn't Philips' heir. It makes me sad to think how desperately he tried to please both of them, an impossible task, even for him. Was that the source of his 'drivenness' though, or did that come from within?
karen wrote:
So the big question is -- why didn't that work better? I found it fairly compelling as I wrote in a previous post, but I haven't read a single review that said, "Whoa, that issue with his parents, wow, did that touch me." Not one. Why weren't more people moved by it?
That's a good question. Maybe the audience didn't know whom to believe, either. Or maybe it upset their preconceived ideas about Alexander, not wanting to consider the conflicted human being under the glorious exterior.
karen wrote:
I know from many posts on this very forum that a major portion of the audience went to see an invincible Alexander kick butt in battle scenes, not a vulnerable one stress out about personal stuff. (Have you noticed that on this forum there's a pretty clear split down male/female lines? The gals like it more than the guys do... I think because gals generally like vulnerable male characters much more than guys do.)
I'm always sad if people who've loved Alexander for a long time were disappointed, because I can imagine what a blow it was for them, after such anticipation. I imagine more men were disappointed, for the reason you say. But if they know and love Alexander, they should know that he could be very emotional sometimes, and that's not OS, that's Arrian. And at least it wasn't all angst, there were plenty of good battle scenes too, and I loved those, too, I would have been glad of more, but I think the balance wasn't bad. Just a bit less of Olympias, that's what I would have liked! But, you hire Angelina Jolie, you have to give her lots to do.
karen wrote: But I wonder if there also isn't a plausibility/coherence problem. In the aftermath of Philip's death, Alexander sweats over whether he got the throne legitimately, but in the rest of the movie showing him acting as king, he never actually does seem conflicted about whether he should have it -- which is true to history. (Somewhere there should have been a shot of him watching hard-eyed as a child is torn from his mother's arms during the selling-into-slavery of a defeated city's survivors, because that would be reality. It's impossible to imagine Colin Farrell doing that, though, isn't it? His eyes were actually never hard, even when they should have been. I don't think he has it in him.)
I see what you mean about the coherence, it's a very good point. And was it you who said the movie Alexander was a sweetheart? Whoever it was, she was right. (I know it was a she, LOL!) I think the hardest Colin eyes got was when he was killing the bull. It probably wasn't hard enough, but it's difficult to think of another actor the right age, with the range to do what he did. Because the sheer vastness of the range of things Alexander was is almost beyond comprehension. Only he himself could truly convey all of it.
karen wrote: And once Philip is dead and the question of which parent wins their battle is resolved, part of you wants to say, as his mother sort of does (and I did love her belting him across the face -- let's face it, she rivettingly stole every scene she was in, despite the Natasha accent and a lot of poorly-written lines): "Who cares how you got to be king? You're it now, you get to be your own man, just go with it." And that really seems to be what he agrees to do, with that final hug, and does in the rest of the movie, anyway. So in that sense, the main conflict/tension source is divorced from the rest of the story, and its power diluted due to that. That keeps the movie from hanging together as a whole.
Nurrrrrturrrre him - her eyes when she said that! She was great, there was just too much of it. But you're right, with that final hug, the conflict is ended, and all the letters don't change that, it's just that she's still there, in the background, like a toothache.
I'm rambling now, I'd better stop. But this is all very interesting, thanks!
Fiona
User avatar
Fiona
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: England

Post by Fiona »

Semiramis wrote: On the flipside, people criticize the Stone movie for the lack of historical accuracy. I'm not sure this is fair, given that Stone is unwilling to fabricate when it comes to the main themes. Yes, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela were merged into the same battle. The battles in India against Porus, the Malleans etc were merged and the settings changed completely to a jungle. Egypt was ignored entirely and Babylon only was shown instead of the four Achaemenid capitals. I can forgive all that, given the timespan of a movie.
Me too, it was all very understandable. He didn't invent, he merged, so the right impression came across. A good idea, with limited time and finance.
Semiramis wrote: However, important themes like Greek vs. Macedonia, Alexander vs. Philip, Olympias, Aristotle, Ancient sexual mores, "Persianizing" etc. were shown. As you say, they are more often than not left unresolved. I personally don't mind a movie that leaves you asking more questions than gives you answers.
There's such an integrity about his choices. I get the feeling that he wouldn't have changed a thing, even if it had meant the movie would have had more success.

Semiramis wrote: I personally felt that some of the questions about Alexander were as well-addressed as they were ever going to be without patronizing the viewer with simple answers about such a complex and enigmatic character. Others could've been dealt with better with more time. But over 3 hours is already getting quite long. :)
Oh, definitely. Better unresolved issues, that make you think, than glib, easy answers that ignore other possibilities.
Semiramis wrote: That's an great reading of it! I love it! I would say that the main conflict was between him and his army (and it's commanders). If you think of his army as Alexander's lover, the Beas scene is where that theme climaxes. "You break my heart, you men."

We go from Alexander being "loved by all"... to Parmenion being surprised at the Palace of Darius as Alexander unveils plans to carry on. We have the hard slog in through Central Asia to India and finally Craterus' plea to go home. The ugly insults, Alexander ordering his own men to be killed. Perhaps most importantly, Alexander being protected from his own army by the Persians. Finally declaring "I will go on with my Asians" and something to the effect of "you can tell people you abandoned me". Cleitus mentions the future army - the "30,000 pretty Persian boys" almost in the manner of the old lover being abandoned for the younger, more beautiful one. :D
I am glad you like it, you are filling out the idea so well there. The more you look, the more there is to see, isn't there? Like the climax at the Beas. And Alexander's words to Hephaistion after the murder of Cleitus, they fir in, too - 'Like an old lover, they forgive but they will never forget.'. Double irony, to say that to Hephaistion when Bagoas is mopping his brow! Oh, there are patterns everywhere, I love it.

Fiona
User avatar
Phoebus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Italy

Post by Phoebus »

Karen, apologies for the late response--didn't mean to be rude, but it's looking as if 'net access will be tough for some time.
karen wrote: I never said it wasn't predictable or even simplistic -- just compelling.
I know. :)

What I'm getting at is that you pointed at Alexander's story as "predictable"... which is entirely correct... and I pointed out that other, very popular movies similarly operate on "predictable" patterns. The question is whether one can produce the filler, drama, and tension needed to make the movie interesting (as per Gladiator, etc.).

I believe we've both agreed that one can do so. I just wanted to make sure my thought process wasn't lost in translation. :)
Well, it means a better result was hoped for, ...
You say tomato, I say "tomahto". :)

The fact of the matter, though, is that virtually evert review I read for the film (from Ebert to Rolling Stone) pointed to flaws in the script, the acting or the direction--not to the source material.

Like you said later, on the surface the story makes for a good movie. I'll grant you that a series of movies or perhaps an HBO-quality series would be a much better format.
It's not the job of reviewers to take into consideration the relative difficulty of the source material, though, so they generally don't.
Oh, I don't know. There are several critiques I've seen wherein the reviewers give at least an indication of the difficulty of the material. In this case, most point at the scope of the project--not the material it provides.
I think what reviewers most likely expected from Stone, actually, was to see Alexander assassinated by a huge, complex and nefarious conspiracy ;)
Agreed! :lol:
Neither of these are endings. ... Revenge of the Sith is a prequel, so we know how things are going to turn out.
We also know how Alexander's life will turn out, though. And the fact that it's Episode III doesn't take away from the fact that it's the last movie made. Outside of the hard-core fans, how many people do you think went home to pop in IV-VI for closure? ;)
Well, I think this is essentially what Stephen Pressfield set out to do. And while I haven't read his Alexander works -- I was turned off by a website excerpt -- I have it on good authority, which jibed with the website excerpt, that his Alexander comes across as a cold, impersonal fish -- not someone that a lot of people are going to like or care about.
I read The Virtues of War and The Afghan Campaigns. The former would have almost made Stone proud, with Alexander shoving off the worst of his decisions to his "Daimon", the inner driving force/alter-ego that makes him at once Great and Ruthless. In the latter, Alexander is hardly present--he is, if anything, a cameo of sorts: a figure to be respected and admired from a distance. So I'm not sure that either is representative of what I'd like to see: a dynamic, warlike, imaginative and ambitious individual who doesn't come ladenned with 20th/21st century baggage that comes courtesy of assumptions formed by our own psychology and social thinking.

And, yes, I do feel that such a character could be appealing to a mass audience.

If anything, I feel Pressfield learned from his first book that he didn't necessarily have the grasp of the man to portray him. I like some of his works, but painting a largely-unknown like Dienekes or a down-to-earth Leonidas is easier than giving us an Alexander.

Besides... throughout history there have been scads of sons of warlike fathers in warlike nations bred on war -- and yet Alexander stands out, with a degree of drive and motivation, and a record of success, that is far out of the ordinary even among the most warlike of cultures. He did follow the path set out for him -- invade Persia -- but in doing so he went vastly beyond what anyone would have thought possible in that short a length of time, even with the Makedonian war machine.
So -- why? What was his secret? People thought it was mysterious even in his own time. There must have been something behind it that was unique.
No offense intended, but I think you're reaching here. No one had tried what he had before--at least not at that scale and that scope, and not from his part of the world. There was no secret or mystery, IMHO; there was opportunity, and he was respected and admired (eventually) for the scope of what he achieved.
I'm curious as to what the central themes are in your opinion.
Just a couple, off the top of my head?
1) His search for his true parentage. Given a conspiratorial nod in the movie, one that gives no justice to the seriousness that his predecessors, contemporaries, and successors placed on the subject.
2) His capacity for cruelty. The razing of cities, the wholesale slaughter and selling off of populations.

There are others that I think were minimalized or outright ignored. But, as we concluded earlier, a larger tableau would have been needed.
You know, I keep making a nod to homophobia as a factor in the bombing of Alexander... but imo it's not the main reason. I think it would have been forgiven by far more people if the movie had just been a better movie.
Oh, absolutely. But don't sell the phobes out just yet... Brokeback Mountain made great money given it's budget... but for all its acclaim and awards it still only brought in $84 mil domestically even after going into mass distribution and following great word-of-mouth.
I was talking about Alexander as presented in the Stone movie.
Well, yeah, no disagreement there. ;)
I'm not quite sure what your point is here, so I don't know whether I agree or disagree, though I suspect judging by the rest of our conversation we're agreeing while suspecting that we disagree. Agree? Or disagree? ;)
I hate the forum format! :lol:

Cheers,
P.
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

Post by karen »

Some more interesting reviews here (including some quite thoughtful ones.)
Post Reply