To Create a War Film

[dean]

Hello,

Yes, I agree that one of the attractions about studies into Alexander is the wide and vast series of possibiliies regarding his life etc. Althout I must admit that he was essentially a warrior/king and since he was a child was brought up to be one and this perhaps is why he has so little interest for anything else- I mean most hot blooded young guys wouldn't have turned Kampaspe away that is for sure. His mind was primed for war- and if war didn't exist then "he" probably would have been the one who invented it.

Best regards,
Dean

[marcus]

Although I must admit that he was essentially a warrior/king and since he was a child was brought up to be one and this perhaps is why he has so little interest for anything else- I mean most hot blooded young guys wouldn't have turned Kampaspe away that is for sure.

He was indeed a "warrior king", but that doesn't mean that the only film made about him should include nothing but battles - that was the point I was making.

(I think you mean Callixiena - wasn't she the one his parents tried to foist on him and he wouldn't have it. Campaspe was the mistress whom he "gave" to Apelles - strongly suggesting that he had not initially turned her away. )

ATB

[jasonxx]

Marcus

You mention umpteen books about Alexander and the fascination about other parts of his life. I put the following to you. Were it not for war battles and blood letting. I would very much argue there wouldnt be a single book at all about Alexander.

Alexanders life was diverse etc. But primarily its war that hes remembered for. Not who he slept with nor had he a mother that danced with Snakes.

Were it not for the barbarism of war. There would be no pothos nor any books for the bookworms to bury themselves in. Alexander is Known as Great. And i think the people public were more interested in what may have made him great. Or am I missing something.

Marcus talk mederate and anti war as much as you like. were it not for war you would have no such books to read. Or would the books be named.

Alexander The Poet. Alexander the Knitter. Alexander the Orator.

Need I say more.

Hail dean indeed Alexander was foremost a warrior king. Striving to sit amongst the Greek heroes.

kenny

[Iolaus]

I have to admit I am reading the forum for quite a while without contributing so far, but this time I have to step out and state my opinion

I have only seen part of 300 because I left the cinema feeling sick to my stomach after all these tons of "blood" ,violence and glorification of war and death.

I agree with all those who completely disliked the movie. This film isn´t about simply telling history ( it´s mainly based on a comic book ) it´s about celebrating war,
"art of death" and the glory of it.

Yes, the world is still brutal and full of real violance but human nature should be civilized enough not to find pleasure in killing or watching it.

It´s nothing heroic about being or dying in a war or a fight, there is no glory as the movie implies, war is about the darkest instincts of mankind, it´s about fear and hurt, about darkness and cold, it´s about rape and people being slaugthered, it´s about blood
and death. There is no glory in that!!

Over here in Germany the critics are very very bad and I doubt many people will watch it. Maybe it´s about our history here that nobody finds pleasure in watching war movies here.

Probably it´s a kind of motivation movie for the troops fighting a war which I don´t want to discuss here, don´t worry, but the soundtrack reminded me very much of old Russian or even Nazi propaganda movies ( I know what I am talking about, I have studied history, especially the German )

As for the Alexander movie which I really love, in this movie fighting war is only one aspect of Alexander´s personality.
Yes, he was brutal, yes, he cruzified people and we can discuss if such brutality was justified but brutality isn´t the main ( or only ) purpose to do or watch the film.

If 300 would won the Oscars I would seriously question the state of modern civilisation.

Ok... I am done

[jasonxx]

Iolas

Indeed your right and pretty utopion in the mind thought. Ok GHermany has adopted a pacifist none war stance which is very noble and just. But you gotta think outside the box. You say civilisation.Is or aught to be beyond war etc. but in reality its no better and somewhat worse.

Half of Africa starving or been butchered by despot Warlords. People from all over the world trying to escape certain countries for asylum and to excape torture persecution and murder. You can see an atrocity or misjustice in every corner of the world. Every Arcade or PC game is mainly based on war.

You may not like and understand the nastyness of war. But dont kid yourself that society is more clean.I bet Lebanon. Palestine. Kossovan Muslims.Peoples in the Sudan etc dont feel society is as civilised as you would claim.

To walk away and ignore a simple war action movie is to basically hide your head in the sand and ignore what really goes on.

deep respect for your beliefs and views

Kenny

[marcus]

You mention umpteen books about Alexander and the fascination about other parts of his life. I put the following to you. Were it not for war battles and blood letting. I would very much argue there wouldnt be a single book at all about Alexander.

I have no doubt that you're right, Kenny - after all, if he hadn't fought all those battles he wouldn't have been who he was in the first place. But that isn't my point - if all there was to him was battles, he wouldn't be such an interesting character. Therefore, what is wrong with exploring the other facets of his character in a film? If one didn't, then he would just be a characterless automaton of a warrior, which in itself would make him (a) extremely boring, and (b) not a good subject for a film, book, cartoon, etc., and thirdly (c) not "the Great", either!

ATB

[jasonxx]

Marcus

I think your missing the point. I ask you a question. What was it in the beggining that drew your attention and interest to Alexander. I would wager the exploits. the accomplishments. Etc etc. Then once the flame was ignighted they your interest is born to look and read deeper.

The initial interest basically and fundamentally with Alexander is. The Great. People ask Great what is Great why was he Great etc. How many peoples interest began with Society Sex personality etc.

My journey was ignoghted with the Original 300 Spartans etc etc. And with agreeing with Paralus once the interest has been ignighted I read long and hard with Ancient Greece and realises as does Paralus that the Ancient Greeks were a long way off the idealised Movies. It did eventually arrive with Alexander. As with you Marcus I have read scores of books then we draw personal opinions and beliefs. Each ones different to the next.

But my argument with Alexander. 300 etc is that they initially should draw interest towards the subject. Im sure 300 has drawn interest and those with any interest will like to read up and see whats what. Alexander and Stone Started in the totally wrong place. They should always start with whjat Alexander was supposed to be then people would find out for themselves. All Alexander did was put people off straight away.

Marcus many times you have said and I agree Ancient History is hardly anywhere withing the School cariculum. The Only history we did at School was Tudor Britain for god sake.

Ill enlighten an instance. My son has seen 300 he loved the movie and at the same time so did my wife. The next thing they are asking me Questions about Leonidas. Spartans etc. It gave me great pleasure telling them the bits and peaces that I did know. The HElots. The Thousands of Greek Allies etc.

We all love the film and it did start a conversation. On the same token I had Pictures Plaques and boobs about Alexander. They watched Stones movie and were not in the slightest bit interested. They were borred and lost in a mish mash convoluted story.

Regards

Kenny

[marcus]

I think your missing the point. I ask you a question. What was it in the beggining that drew your attention and interest to Alexander. I would wager the exploits. the accomplishments. Etc etc. Then once the flame was ignighted they your interest is born to look and read deeper.

No, I don't think I'm missing the point - I don't disagree with you at all that, first and foremost, that's what draws people to Alexander (often, but maybe not always). It was, indeed, what first interested me.

What I'm saying is that there is much more to Alexander, and therefore it would be very "basic" to expect a film that focused purely on the battles. Now it might well be, as you suggest, that focusing on something else is/was a mistake in terms of generating interest amongst people who don't know anything about Alexander. It might also have alienated people who do know something about Alexander, if the film didn't match up to their idea of Alexander (as indeed appears to have been the case). However, my contention is still that there is so much more to Alexander than only battles.

"300", as you rightly say elsewhere, focused on a period of a few days at Thermopylae, and an unspecified, but fairly short, period beforehand. If a film about Alexander were simply about the days leading up to Gaugamela, and the battle itself, then it would justify being battle and nothing more. If one is trying to make a true "biopic", then you can't do that without including umpteen other things.

This isn't about whether Stone succeeded or not; simply trying to explain why I don't think one can focus on Alexander's battles and not include loads of other facets of his character/life.

ATB

[athenas owl]

If someone was to make a realistic movie about the battle of Gaugamela there be wails from the audiance...a screen full of dust!

I enjoy reading historians as they try to explain exactly what happened there. No two accounts match each other. The mysterious events on the Macedonian's left wing and all that.

Speaking of that, I got "The Making of Alexander" iin the mail. There's some tid bits of historical content or opinion from RLF in it, and I just enjoy his writing style.

One thing he realised, as he road around in that dust was why so many of ATG's horses could have foundered in the rapid calvary chases. The thirst and the inhalation of dust was debilitating. And there's a great line about the discomfort of riding without saddles. Something about Hephaistion's backside being so leathery and tough after six years of riding, Fox could understand why Bagoas was so attractive to Alexander.

[jasonxx]

Marcus ok point taken. But really isnt Alexanders story epics within an epic.

The last 2 Lord of the Rings movies were 3 hours plus and basically consisted of 2 sieges and the stuff what went on around those battles. So much so we failed to in my opinion get a grasp od Legolas. Aragorn they were in the movies relatively small. Paricualy in the last one. So to be perfectly hones how on earth can you pach all Alexanders epic into 3 hours its impossible then at the same time try to dig in his sexuality and personality.

If you try make an omlette and over do it with ingredients it tastes bloody aweful and looks a mess. A story is best told as with a Sunday dinner keep it simple with quality ingredients.

Kenny

[Paralus]

Perhaps I will not see this film. This review, by Paul Byrnes in the SMH, says it better than I:

This adaptation of the story of the 300 Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae, based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, would have Herodotus turning in his grave and Hitler rising from his.

It is violent enough to make you shudder and close enough to fascist art to make your skin crawl. It celebrates all the things the Fuehrer loved - the glorious, operatic spectacle of senseless death, the ruthless weeding out of the weak, the gross caricaturing of the enemy, the indoctrination of the young, even a mountain-climbing ordeal for the hero - and all as it purports to be a movie about freedom.

Welcome to the new double-speak: Sparta as a metaphor for America, courtesy of Warner Bros, in which the politics of eugenics is reborn amid one of the most sickeningly violent and mindless films of the new millennium. Adolf would have been pleased: he may have lost the war, but his ideas live on in mystical, military propaganda like this, aimed at spotty boys in need of heroes. God help us...

These Spartans have more six packs than a butcher's picnic. David Wenham has never looked so buff as he does here, in a ridiculous role as the one-eyed historian to the Spartans. Nor, in fact, were the Persians equipped with attack elephants or giant rhinos. And unless a lot has changed since 480BC, the Persians were not as black as Nubians, either. The Persian king, Xerxes, is played as an effeminate man with an ego the size of Africa and way too much gold bling...

The graphic novel was first published in 1998, but there's no doubt that the film's politics have been reforged hotter by the events of September 11. Here's what Miller has said about "the enemy": "For some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against and the sixth-century barbarism they actually represent. These people saw people's heads off. They enslave women; they genetically (sic) mutilate their daughters. They do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I'm speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture. And I'm living in a city where 3000 of my neighbours were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built."

What Miller offers as a counter-argument is simply a much older kind of barbarism, dressed up to make the Spartans out to be freedom-lovers. Tell that to the serfs they forced into labour and the Helots they kept in line with secret police and death squads. The Nazis took valuable lessons from Sparta so it's more than surprising to see Warner Bros, founded by four Jewish brothers, putting its resources into a movie that glorifies these ideas.

But then, it's only a comic-book movie, after all. No sense getting worked up, is there? It's only for youngsters who want a bit of blood and guts between computer games, right? No harm

No, couldn't have written it better had I tried. God bless him, he even mentioned the Helots and the other 6,000 or so Greeks.

No point in spoiling a well crafted, if blunt, piece of propaganda with the rather annoying truth though eh?

[dean]

Hello,

No sense getting worked up, is there?

I liked that closing remark. I love the way people instantly love to find comparisons with America or Hitler or whoever or whatever is on their current agenda- and can't see a piece of film etc. just on its own merits- and personally Paralus, I wouldn't let someone decide for you what you think about the film- I would go and see it for yourself- you might hate it- (with your expectations I think you probably will), on the other hand you might not.

Either way- no big deal. I enjoyed the film- but each to their own.

Best regards,
Dean

[jasonxx]

Am I thick Stupid ,Uneducated , Iliterate Narrow, Thick.

I see all the negative anti Fascist stuff with 300. The persistent pettiness about inacuracies. I know the Greek histories and would argue Im as up with the thinking as anyone in Pothos and any of these hight minded Philosophical Film Critecs. The Type that would try find in depth meaning to a coat of paint drying on a wall.

Im all for 300 and love the movie. But bottom line its personal choice and taste,. I prefer it to American Teen comedies or romantic period tosh. I doubt there has ever been made a historical movie that is real. El CId. Spartacus. Braveheart.no name but a few are highly rated Historical Classics. But they are mostly off the mark. But no one seems to care.

As Ive said the demonic theme with the Persians I would say is symbolic. Igagine the German Luftwaffe or the Invasion fleet across the English Channel I doubt the British saw these as human. But devilish monstrous invaders. With The Anti Nazi Rantings etc etc. These Critics wouldny knoe a Nazi if one bit them in the ass.

Lord OF The Rings. Is entirely the same story. Gondor. THe Shire etc. all been attacked by marauding monsters. Tolkiens theme was taken by his experiences in the second worlds war. I guess in THe Lord OF The Rings it was abvious who were the Nazis. Who do the Critics thing are the Nazis in 300.

The Greeks holding out or the Invading Persian Hoards.

This Movie is the best Ive seen for decades. Its not to do with fighting Killing or murder. And the final scene where Leonidas gets killed is as heart wrenching as Spartacus looking down upon his son from the cross.

I would thank Film Critics as a whole. As my guide to miss any film is to see what movies Critics smash because its those theyt shout about that head straight fror the Bargain Bucket. Finaly I am not a spotty little kid adicted to video games Ive never played one in my life. Id wager good money I would hold my own with any intellectual or so called intelectual. On the topic of Historucal fact or theory.

Hail Leonidas.

kenny

[keroro]

Well reading through this thread I've found myself agreeing with Marcus on the whole, so I won't worry about posting too much here. But a few points won't go amiss.

On LotR - Tolkien went out of his way to say that it was not based on WWII. After all, the allies would have used the ring (representing nuclear weapons) against Sauron in that case, rather than destroying it. Of cource, whether you think the author has enough objectivity to make these kinds of statements is up to you to decide.

As I said before, and Marcus has echoed, if you made a film on Gaugamela then you could compare it to 300. The comparison between 300 and Alexander is a category error.

Now, leaving aside the issue of whether a movie can have a soul...

Kerero
The no brainer thing that keeps getting mentioned. Basically how intricate can you get and complicated with a story that basically lasted a couple of weeks at the most. Were not talking saga or intricate threads. Als we did get below the surface. We saw the deciept the corruptness. The movie said what it was meant to be without losing itself in Cryptic Analasism.

It's Keroro...
Well that is sort of what I was saying isn't it? If you go in to watch 300 with the expectation of something to tax your brain then you are not going to be happy come the end. On the other hand, if you leave your brain at the door then it can provide some fun. And, yes, some laughs.

Ok im singular here and accept and know the inacuracies. But for me the soul was real. Ok maybe the Sparatns didnt fight alone. Maybe the Persians were not monsters.etc etc.

But it represented far more of whats missing an society. and just maybe people youth etc need a little reminder abvout values. Loving and defending your Wife and family even if you have to die. Honour and respect between the people and commanders.

If your values involve killing disabled people at birth, training 7 year olds to kill, minimising the contribution of your allies, demonising an entire culture on the basis of a generations old feud and associating physical disfigurement with treachery; then you are welcome to them to be quite honest. I truely hope that you never manage to 'remind' the people and the youth of their value.

In the real world Leonidas is very rare. But its not such a bad thing tohope for noble people. As Diogenes most famously qouted. He was looking for an honest man.

There is no shortage of people willing to die for what they think of as their freedom, today or in the past.

I feel the quote about leaving your brian behind basically refers to the academics and historical men. But for me the movie had more soul than any Ive seen for a long time.

Surely by frequenting a site such as this you put yourself into the category of 'academics and historical men'?

But ultimately its all about prefernce and personal taste. To say the movie is bad and be critical is to basically ignore the vast majority of people who watched this movie and voted with bums on seats. Braveheart Was even more fabricated but it still didnt stop it been a fantastic movie. With all the Characteristics of 300. Loyalty bravery honour love etc.

Well I never said that it was a bad film. It is horrendous as far as history goes, but entertaining as far as the spectacle is concerned. Now Braveheart, on the other hand, is the film I that I think of when I think of bad films. But that is just my opinion.

[jasonxx]

Korero

No I dont find Killing Handicapped Kids. Demonising Nations. Missing out Greek Alies or the other things you highlighted funny.

Nor do I find funny. Paedophilia, Child Prostitution. Forced Marriages. Third world Starvation whilst the west grows fat with Designer good funny. But realistically it does esist. There is no better society today than in the past. And for you to be naive enough to think it is is rather Ostrich in the Sand. Dont you think the British Navy Hosatge scenario. With the aid of media and selling stories has done to medern Iran what the 300 did to the Persians.

Try seeing the wood for the trees.

Kenny