Celebrating Alexander's Birthday

[Paralus]

[Paralus, what you call "conceit" is called "lack of budget and time" in Hollywood. He didn't imply that there was only one battle, but that Gaugamela was the high point of ATG's life. After that, things began to fall apart. He threw in Cleitus saving ATG's life because it was a great story and set up the tragedy of ATG then murdering him years later. It took a minute for me to get the galloping to Babylon thing. Again, it was a film, and if ATG had been sauntering away from the center it wouldn't have had the visual impact.

And the combined battle in India, it actually showed just how different and "unhappy" it was was for ATG than Gaugamela had been. The "jungle" setting was to make the point that India was a very different place (even the camera filters were different, more grainy, diffused or something).. And did you miss the part in Ptolemy's narration where he mentions the savage butchery on the part of the Macedonians?

Don't get me wrong: I have no disagreement with the above. Budgets, running time, etc all impact on the film. And, in film, perception is all. The distinct impression is that there was one climactic battle that felled Persia. I know that Ptolemy mentions the others but those with a minimal knowledge will have picked up that aforementioned distinct impression.

The combined Indian battle rankled too. It is extremely unlikely that Alexander ever took his phalanx into a forest to fight. I grant your point about creating the different feel. The arty red colouring drove me up the wall I must say.

I still believe that a proper reconstruction of Gaugamela will have been just as punchy as the ridiculous full-on charge to Babylon before straightening. The tension will have mounted as the armies closed the gap and Alexander inexorably trooped to the right and forward. Then the engagement of Alexander’s van with the Scythians, the ensuing desperate cavalry holding battle on the right as Alexander seizes the moment to straighten the attack and fall on the Persian line with the hypaspists and aesthetairoi.

I didn't like the film terribly much. My wife bought me the Director's Cut and I haven't bothered with the "final take" or whatever.

I’m afraid, when it comes to the history and this film, I'll have to beg you to allow me my crusty curmudgeonness

[marcus]

I didn't like the film terribly much. My wife bought me the Director's Cut and I haven't bothered with the "final take" or whatever.

I’m afraid, when it comes to the history and this film, I'll have to beg you to allow me my crusty curmudgeonness

I really don't want to get into discussions about the film - and I think my thoughts are well enough known.

What I will say, however, is that, while your opinions on the historicity etc. won't be changed by watching Alexander Revisited, I can say with great certainty that, were you to watch it, you would think it a better film.

ATB

[Semiramis]

I'm not sure anyone has claimed that a movie's job is to make the audience feel sympathetic towards the protagonist.

Well...

But... do you think the audience would have any sympathy for the main character after this?

His Alexander was obviously meant to be a sympathetic character. My point was that, if the siege of Tyre was included in the storyline, the brutality that followed would have to be included too and this did not fit into the slant of this particular movie.

Hi Phoebus,

If you just reinsert the one line that's been left out when quoting me, things are less confusing.

I'm not sure anyone has claimed that a movie's job is to make the audience feel sympathetic towards the protagonist. We've been discussing Stone's movie in this thread. His Alexander was obviously meant to be a sympathetic character. My point was that, if the siege of Tyre was included in the storyline, the brutality that followed would have to be included too and this did not fit into the slant of this particular movie.

I can see how if one missed that line, and jumbled the order or some other lines a little, it might look like I was foolishly contradicting myself from post to post. But I don't feel that's the case here.

Right, and while I respect and understand the point of different people viewing Alexander differently, largely as a result of the often-contradictory extant record (or lack thereof), I believe that "Stone's" Alexander is an incomplete one. When you make a character sympathetic through omission, that's less an interpretation and more of a re-invention.

Absolutely. No arguments there. I tend to be quite forgiving of fiction. Am currently trying source that Klaus Mann book Amyntoros recommended, that doesn't sound like its much of a stickler for historical accuracy.

If another movie came out showing the "hard, brutal" Alexander, it would simply go in the opposite direction to sympathy.

It would be similarly lacking, in my humble opinion. Personally, I simply don't see that it would be difficult to show both facets of the man. Many of my friends have tried to argue that portraying such a complex man--ruthless but cultured, murderous but loving--isn't feasible, but I steadfastly disagree. Michael Corleone, to me, stands as prime example of a villainous protagonist who ruthlessly murders, orders the execution of his brother, brings pain to his family and is central to the corruption and downfall of his immediate society--but nonetheless captivates the audience to a degree that, I believe, he is viewed as a sympathetic character.

Of course, showing the aftermaths of the Siege of Tyre and other "hard, brutal" Alexander moments doesn't mean one is no not allowed to show him crying over Hephaistion's death. My point is, you might find that once the audience has seen a graphic scene showing something like the aftermaths of the siege of Tyre (just to take one example), they're not going to care if Alexander can recite Greek plays or cries for his friends. None of that can "balance" him out into a nuanced character. It still leaves him in the "bad guy" camp. Micheal Corleone's wee executions are seriously small potatoes compared to our hero's razing of cities, clearing out entire populations through killing and selling to slavery and mass crucifixions, don't you think?

I'm pretty sure the North American audience would come out of the theater with some strong negative emotions about that Alexander character after any scenes of, say, mass crucifixions.

I would offer that ticket sales indicate that same North American audience came out of the theatre with some strong negative emotion about an Alexander character who didn't resemble the conqueror they were expecting enough.

Anywho, that's just me offering opinions. I promise, I'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake of it! Thanks for sharing your opinions!

Like I keep saying, I hardly know anybody who likes the movie, so I'm used to no one agreeing with me! For the people I know, their objections have centered around the "emotional Alexander" aspect. Believe me when I say that a part of the movie-going audience is more comfortable watching men kill each other than hearing declarations of affection between them!

[Alita]

Personally, I simply don't see that it would be difficult to show both facets of the man. Many of my friends have tried to argue that portraying such a complex man--ruthless but cultured, murderous but loving--isn't feasible, but I steadfastly disagree.

So do I. Yul Brynner would have played the part to a tee.

Like I keep saying, I hardly know anybody who likes the movie, so I'm used to no one agreeing with me! For the people I know, their objections have centered around the "emotional Alexander" aspect. Believe me when I say that a part of the movie-going audience is more comfortable watching men kill each other than hearing declarations of affection between them!

It's not the emotion itself that irritated me but how it was played. And it's not the affectionate scenes which most displeased me but rather, the fact that these aspects of Alexander (emotion) were not properly balanced with his other aspects, for example his keen and brilliant mind. The character Colin portrays would not have inspired me to cross the Hindu Kush for him. Maybe it was a casting error. It just didn't reek of courage enough!

I did like some things: the first battle scene (eagle flying overhead) was breathtaking; Anjelina Jolie was a fantastic Olympias; Anthony Hopkins was also believable; and Vangelis' music was just RIGHT. I wanted to see more of Val Kilmer because he's a fascinating actor and had the depth and masculinity to pull Philip off. So I'm not totally against every aspect of the movie; I think I was just expecting too much. When you have someone like Alexander, just like Jesus, devotees will have a certain level of expectations. I just think Oliver Stone should have consulted with someone who had read up on the Great and knew which scenes would inspire and keep the audience interested. Remember that most people who watched the movie didn't and don't know anywhere near as much about Alexander's life as you kind people do - they would not have been able to put everything into the right context as a well-studied mind could!

[athenas owl]

Marcus...I do agree completely..the Revisited is a much better film.

So, if some bright bulb wanted to make a film about the Diadochi...how in the world would you compress those decades into one film? Or even if someone made a film about only one of them...would most viewers go..."Who, what..huh?".

[Katerina]

It went a bit too Mary Renault at the end, I thought - the Final Cut only, I mean, not the earlier ones - I think she should have been credited.
I've never met anyone who likes the wedding night scene with Roxane, and adding Bagoas doesn't help. The bit before, though, with the ring, is an entirely different matter...

Fiona

I agree, it did go a bit Mary Renault at the end and more, I have to say, I believe alot of the Hephaistion / Alexander scenes where they are almost eye flirting, and glancig at one another, even the crying ring scene, was more movie propaganda then anyhting else.

I think it was placed there do emphasise to the viewer that there was a relationship, but I have a hard time believing it was as is projected in the film.

I believe Hephaistion knew exactly where he stood with Alexander. This was not Alexander's 1st relationship with a female, and by this time, Barsine was already pregnant or given birth to Herakles.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I liked the fact that Stone tried to show Alexander the man, but I think he went a little overboard at times. In my opinion, Stone ruined the Alexander/Hephaistion scene when they were in the room looking out over the water, and Stone had Hephaistion talk about Alexander's neck tilt. It was almost embarassing to watch. I am glad he removed that scene in the other movie cuts. I think it was director's cut that had most of the weird scenes removed. I enjoyed the film much better without them !

Anyway, I do not mean to ramble

[Semiramis]

Personally, I simply don't see that it would be difficult to show both facets of the man. Many of my friends have tried to argue that portraying such a complex man--ruthless but cultured, murderous but loving--isn't feasible, but I steadfastly disagree.

So do I. Yul Brynner would have played the part to a tee.

Ah! That was Phoebus with those words... I'm of the opinion that only a highly whitewashed version of Alexander would make a palatable movie.

[Paralus]

So, if some bright bulb wanted to make a film about the Diadochi...

Now, there's something I'd walk over broken glass to see. Cine-lounge, bottle of red, heaven.

I agree about the complexities - a very difficult thing to cover in a film. A series - like Rome - would likely be needed. Perhaps not as long. The individuals would all need to be fleshed and the ever changing patterns of alliance would need to be made somewhat less confusing. If the Triumvirs can be covered in Rome then the possibility exists that the Diadochoi might too.

[Fiona]

Guys,

How could Stone show the siege of Tyre without showing the aftermath? Young ones taking refuge in the temples, 6,000 fighting men dead, 2,000 crucified, 35,000 sold to slavery. Only survivors sneaked out by Alexander's new allies in the region. I can imagine a shot of crucified Tyrians along the beach as far as the eye can see. But... do you think the audience would have any sympathy for the main character after this? I think Ptolemy makes a passing apologetic mention of Thebes... Can't recall if Tyre or Gaza was included in the narration. Time to watch the Final Cut again methinks...

I agree, you'd have to show the aftermath. No whitewashing. It would make very powerful cinema - probably too powerful. I agree it would be hard for the audience to have sympathy for Alexander after seeing that.
That's why I think that the story of Tyre would work better as a single movie in its own right. You'd have time to get all the details in, and while that wouldn't make the ending any easier to take, it might make it easier to understand, if the audience had seen the murdered heralds, the red-hot sand and the burning siege towers.
Fiona

[Fiona]

I agree, it did go a bit Mary Renault at the end and more, I have to say, I believe alot of the Hephaistion / Alexander scenes where they are almost eye flirting, and glancig at one another, even the crying ring scene, was more movie propaganda then anyhting else.
I think it was placed there do emphasise to the viewer that there was a relationship, but I have a hard time believing it was as is projected in the film.

Not quite sure what you're saying here - do you mean that you think the relationship was more or less than was depicted?
I think myself it was a fine balancing act on OS's part. He had to show enough to do justice to Alexander and Hephaistion. He couldn't miss out their love - and it was love, whether physical or not - that wouldn't have been honest. But on the other hand he had to consider the sensibilities of certain sections of his intended audience.

I believe Hephaistion knew exactly where he stood with Alexander. This was not Alexander's 1st relationship with a female, and by this time, Barsine was already pregnant or given birth to Herakles.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I liked the fact that Stone tried to show Alexander the man, but I think he went a little overboard at times. In my opinion, Stone ruined the Alexander/Hephaistion scene when they were in the room looking out over the water, and Stone had Hephaistion talk about Alexander's neck tilt. It was almost embarassing to watch. I am glad he removed that scene in the other movie cuts. I think it was director's cut that had most of the weird scenes removed. I enjoyed the film much better without them !

Oh, the Director's Cut, the second one, the one with all the good bits cut out, you mean?

Seriously, the bits you don't like are a lot of people's favourite scenes...just goes to show, we all have very different tastes!
I once asked some friends who Alexander loved best after Hephaistion, and got the very good answer, 'Bucephalus'.
I think that's probably dead right.
Fiona

[Katerina]

I agree, it did go a bit Mary Renault at the end and more, I have to say, I believe alot of the Hephaistion / Alexander scenes where they are almost eye flirting, and glancig at one another, even the crying ring scene, was more movie propaganda then anyhting else.
I think it was placed there do emphasise to the viewer that there was a relationship, but I have a hard time believing it was as is projected in the film.

Not quite sure what you're saying here - do you mean that you think the relationship was more or less than was depicted?
I think myself it was a fine balancing act on OS's part. He had to show enough to do justice to Alexander and Hephaistion. He couldn't miss out their love - and it was love, whether physical or not - that wouldn't have been honest. But on the other hand he had to consider the sensibilities of certain sections of his intended audience.

I believe Hephaistion knew exactly where he stood with Alexander. This was not Alexander's 1st relationship with a female, and by this time, Barsine was already pregnant or given birth to Herakles.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I liked the fact that Stone tried to show Alexander the man, but I think he went a little overboard at times. In my opinion, Stone ruined the Alexander/Hephaistion scene when they were in the room looking out over the water, and Stone had Hephaistion talk about Alexander's neck tilt. It was almost embarassing to watch. I am glad he removed that scene in the other movie cuts. I think it was director's cut that had most of the weird scenes removed. I enjoyed the film much better without them !

Oh, the Director's Cut, the second one, the one with all the good bits cut out, you mean?

Seriously, the bits you don't like are a lot of people's favourite scenes...just goes to show, we all have very different tastes!
I once asked some friends who Alexander loved best after Hephaistion, and got the very good answer, 'Bucephalus'.
I think that's probably dead right.
Fiona

I do agre with this statement : "I once asked some friends who Alexander loved best after Hephaistion, and got the very good answer, 'Bucephalus'.
I think that's probably dead right."

I believe he did love Hephaistion more than anyone else, and maybe I'm not stating my intention clearly, and I'm sorry. I'm not even sure how to express what I wanted to say, so I will not even attempt again !

[Semiramis]

I believe he did love Hephaistion more than anyone else, and maybe I'm not stating my intention clearly, and I'm sorry. I'm not even sure how to express what I wanted to say, so I will not even attempt again !

Katerina,

I think I know what you're saying. I just don't see a Macedonian guy getting upset about his King not being monogamous, whether Hephaistion and Alexander were lovers or not. Even if Alexander married Roxanne due to "falling in love" and not political reasons, Hephaistion would have still been quite confident that he was highest in the pecking order. Neither do I see the teenage Sogdian captive bride having the chance to object to Alexander's relationship with Hephaistion.

I similarly had a problem with Olympias' pouting "Do I look so old!" moment when Philip married Euridike. It wasn't about petty jealousy, but the fear of losing power and status to Euridike if she gave birth to an all-Macedonian Argead male. Phillip had married 7 times, Olympias was fourth. It was politics...

I think Stone inserted the monogamous expectations of modern relationships into a time when things were quite different...

[Katerina]

I believe he did love Hephaistion more than anyone else, and maybe I'm not stating my intention clearly, and I'm sorry. I'm not even sure how to express what I wanted to say, so I will not even attempt again !

Katerina,

I think I know what you're saying. I just don't see a Macedonian guy getting upset about his King not being monogamous, whether Hephaistion and Alexander were lovers or not. Even if Alexander married Roxanne due to "falling in love" and not political reasons, Hephaistion would have still been quite confident that he was highest in the pecking order. Neither do I see the teenage Sogdian captive bride having the chance to object to Alexander's relationship with Hephaistion.

I similarly had a problem with Olympias' pouting "Do I look so old!" moment when Philip married Euridike. It wasn't about petty jealousy, but the fear of losing power and status to Euridike if she gave birth to an all-Macedonian Argead male. Phillip had married 7 times, Olympias was fourth. It was politics...

I think Stone inserted the monogamous expectations of modern relationships into a time when things were quite different...

I could not have said it better ! Yes, This is exactly what I meant.

[Phoebus]

Semiramis,

I did read your following statement, but I'm not sure how they reconcile with one another. Per your own words, your concern was whether the audience would remain sympathetic to Alexander. You went on to qualify that Stone's movie was geared toward a sympathetic character. I will admit I'm confused.

Quick addition: to clarify things from my end... when I asked whether a movie's job is to make you feel sympathetic toward the protagonist or to entertain, I didn't mean any movie; I meant this movie in specific.

Now, having thought about it, the alternative being "to entertain" should be struck. My question should simply read "is the movie's job to make you feel sympathetic toward the character?" My answer is "no". Especially not when you accomplish this end without full disclosure. To use the Corleone example again, imagine Michael being a historical figure, but Coppola only filming part 3--and depicting only the family-oriented Michael, who wants to reconcile with his children, escape crime and violence and make the world better.

Absolutely. No arguments there. I tend to be quite forgiving of fiction.

I can respect that; having said that, my issue is that Stone did not bill this as fiction.

My point is, you might find that once the audience has seen a graphic scene showing something like the aftermaths of the siege of Tyre (just to take one example), they're not going to care if Alexander can recite Greek plays or cries for his friends. None of that can "balance" him out into a nuanced character.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I think it has to do with how the director chooses to depict said event. Obviously we're talking hypotheticals here, but there's a vast visual difference between showing Alexander standing over grizzled Pezhetairoi hammering in nails through young men's hands on crosses while their mothers and sisters are carted off wailing; and Alexander riding out of Tyre with a grim look on his face, either side of the road lined with crucified men and Hopkins narrating about how it had come to this and how it was the lot of the vanquished for that time. Just examples.

Micheal Corleone's wee executions are seriously small potatoes compared to our hero's razing of cities, clearing out entire populations through killing and selling to slavery and mass crucifixions, don't you think?

Again, I think it's all about depictions.

For the people I know, their objections have centered around the "emotional Alexander" aspect. Believe me when I say that a part of the movie-going audience is more comfortable watching men kill each other than hearing declarations of affection between them!

I think you're right here. Even so, I would qualify this by saying that, critics at least, had no issue with this in, say, "Brokeback Mountain". My main issue was with the dynamic between Alexander and Hephaestion is that it really was melodramatic at times.

Now, personally, I wanted a movie that was as true to Alexander as possible and I view romances with Hephaestion, Barsine or Roxanne as largely debatable matters, never stated explicitly or convincingly enough in the extant record. Siwa, Tyre and many other epic moments from Alexander's life aren't, though. Stone knew that, just as he knew that he was going with themes that weren't going to resonate for his audience. In the end, I just think he made the wrong decisions--both creatively and in terms of marketing.

Anywho, there I go rambling. So, in closing, thanks for your thoughts again... sorry I took so long to reply!

[Semiramis]

Semiramis,

I did read your following statement, but I'm not sure how they reconcile with one another. Per your own words, your concern was whether the audience would remain sympathetic to Alexander. You went on to qualify that Stone's movie was geared toward a sympathetic character. I will admit I'm confused.

Hi Phoebus,

I'm terrible at expressing myself. I did not state that all movies need to generate sympathy towards the main character. I stated that Stone's movie was obviously geared to have a sympathetic main character. Hence, in Stone's movie one could not show the aftermaths of the siege of Tyre as it would clash with this particular director's attempts at this particular movie. This leaves any other director free to create a movie where the main character is "nuanced" or and outright "bad guy".

Quick addition: to clarify things from my end... when I asked whether a movie's job is to make you feel sympathetic toward the protagonist or to entertain, I didn't mean any movie; I meant this movie in specific.

Now, having thought about it, the alternative being "to entertain" should be struck. My question should simply read "is the movie's job to make you feel sympathetic toward the character?" My answer is "no". Especially not when you accomplish this end without full disclosure. To use the Corleone example again, imagine Michael being a historical figure, but Coppola only filming part 3--and depicting only the family-oriented Michael, who wants to reconcile with his children, escape crime and violence and make the world better.

It's obvious that you disagree with the entire take on Alexander in this movie. I doubt small changes like including something and excluding something else would change the movie enough to make Alexander into the "rough and tough" character many people wanted. I don't agree that only an "brutal and hard" conqueror can entertain or a more "historically accurate" one. I loved kohl-eyed warriors sharing smoldering looks and poetry the night before the big battle. Again, I tend to come across fiction about Alexander and enjoy someone else's vision. I expect them to omit, fabricate etc. to create characters, themes etc. I have watched Japanese Anime about Alexander set in the distant future and enjoyed it immensely. Seriously.

Absolutely. No arguments there. I tend to be quite forgiving of fiction.

I can respect that; having said that, my issue is that Stone did not bill this as fiction.

It's a feature film. Is that not by its very definition fiction? :S

My point is, you might find that once the audience has seen a graphic scene showing something like the aftermaths of the siege of Tyre (just to take one example), they're not going to care if Alexander can recite Greek plays or cries for his friends. None of that can "balance" him out into a nuanced character.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I think it has to do with how the director chooses to depict said event. Obviously we're talking hypotheticals here, but there's a vast visual difference between showing Alexander standing over grizzled Pezhetairoi hammering in nails through young men's hands on crosses while their mothers and sisters are carted off wailing; and Alexander riding out of Tyre with a grim look on his face, either side of the road lined with crucified men and Hopkins narrating about how it had come to this and how it was the lot of the vanquished for that time. Just examples.

Micheal Corleone's wee executions are seriously small potatoes compared to our hero's razing of cities, clearing out entire populations through killing and selling to slavery and mass crucifixions, don't you think?

Again, I think it's all about depictions.

So, if you're talking about how killing, slavery, crucifixions etc after siege of Tyre can be filmed in order to make the audience accept, excuse or even sympathize with Alexander, aren't you basically talking about achieving this end by making sure there is no full disclosure? Show crucified people but no close ups of their agonizing faces. Show our hero riding, not crucifying. Avoid any close ups of Batis after he's been dragged around with a Chariot he's been nailed to. Make sure you don't cast a good-looking guy for Batis...

For the people I know, their objections have centered around the "emotional Alexander" aspect. Believe me when I say that a part of the movie-going audience is more comfortable watching men kill each other than hearing declarations of affection between them!

I think you're right here. Even so, I would qualify this by saying that, critics at least, had no issue with this in, say, "Brokeback Mountain". My main issue was with the dynamic between Alexander and Hephaestion is that it really was melodramatic at times.

Now, personally, I wanted a movie that was as true to Alexander as possible and I view romances with Hephaestion, Barsine or Roxanne as largely debatable matters, never stated explicitly or convincingly enough in the extant record. Siwa, Tyre and many other epic moments from Alexander's life aren't, though. Stone knew that, just as he knew that he was going with themes that weren't going to resonate for his audience. In the end, I just think he made the wrong decisions--both creatively and in terms of marketing.

Anywho, there I go rambling. So, in closing, thanks for your thoughts again... sorry I took so long to reply!

Critics having no issue with a non-blockbuster film portraying "macho" yet "homosexual" men is quite different from the intended audience for a blockbuster "action" film having issues with it.

I would expect Roxane, Bagoas and/or Hephaistion to be there in the most popular fiction about Alexander. You drop any middlebrow fiction book on its spine and it'll open on the page with the sex in it. I'm willing to bet that Alexander's Lovers link gets more hits than Alexander's sieges in Pothos. Can Marcus or Amyntoros comment on that? 'Tis the nature of fiction that there will be a love interest (or 3).

Look, I'm gonna love the melodrama as much as other people will dislike it. We're not going to change our opinions on it either way, and that wasn't the purpose of the discussion anyway. I think you bring up some really good points. Especially about whether such omissions do justice to Alexander's legacy. One might even say that movies like this glorify or excuse wars and invasions by white-washing the brutality out of it. I think we agree on more than we disagree at the end of the day. It's always enlightening to discuss this stuff with you.