I cant Decide wether the Gaugamella Battle scene the Best?

[kenny]

Companions Hi.I think I can say that for detail and realistic action and overall coverage of a Battle Gaugamella just could be no 1.Can I ask Porthinians there top 10 Cinema Battles or troop scenes. Ill have a go.1/ If not Alexander has to be the overall siege in Lord Of The Rings. Return of the King.2/Initial Battle in Gladiator.3/ Sterlin Bridge Braveheart.4/Valencia battle . El Cid5/Waterloo.6/Zulu7/Taras Bulba collecting thousands of Kossacks to fight the Poles8/Spartacus9/Lord Of The Rings. Helms deep10/300 Spartans.RegardsKenny

[marcus]

Hi Kenny,I'm not sure whether I can put my favourites in order, but I have to add the siege of Jerusalem in "Kingdom of Heaven", and the siege in "The Warlord" (Charlton Heston as a Norman knight).ATBMarcus

[marcus]

Oh, and ... I'd probably lose "300 Spartans" ... didn't do it for me, I'm afraid.ATBMarcus

[kenny]

Marcus HailI definately agree with the Empire of God. But the movie lost me totally with Orlando Bloom as the warrior leader.as Simon Cowel would say I just didnt get it. He was pretty cool and slick as Legolas but no way a medievil fighter.He was far more off the mark with than than Colin As Alexander. farrel is a rough and cut kinda guy but im afraid Orlando no. Ill add the movie to my collection as you said the siege and some of the battles very good.respect Kenny.Sorry about the 300 Spartans kinda did it for me and it began my journey to Alexander.

[heinrich]

Ahem - we're going to disagree, but... are you serious?Stone's Gaugamela showed us a Darius with a Bin Laden beard, running away as a coward; and as pothosians we know better. Stone is -to put it bluntly- repeating Macedonian propaganda.My favorite battle scenes would include something from "Cross of Iron", which shows us doubting and hesitating Russian and German soldiers, a criminal who earned the cross of iron and happens to be a hero, and a Prussian gentleman-coward. No heroism at all. Also: The Thin Red Line.HM

[heinrich]

I should add something. War propaganda uses a couple of standard tricks to make sure that you don't perceive what is really going on.One possibility is to create an overview, a general perspective. Whatever happened at Gaugamela, it was a mess and no one could see what was going on; all that people experienced was butchering and being butchered. If a director uses a bird's eye point of view, he is just making sure that you will not witness the horrors. (Cf. "Saving Private Ryan" or "Doctor Strangelove": only real perspectives, from the eyes of the men. No stable cameras but hand-held, shaking arriflex.)Another possibility is sublimizing. After the battle, thousands of people suffer a painful, and protracted death. If Stone wanted to show you a battle, he should also have shown this. Instead, he focuses on Alexander who kills one of his soldiers. This is shifting the attention away from those who suffer and focussing on the commander.(Cf. "Patton": Patton defeats Rommel - we hardly see the men in their burning tanks, instead we see Patton shouting "I read your book!")Finally, add some music, as if war is entertainment. Stone has used all the tricks of a propaganda movie.

[nick]

Accidently, I watched Stone's movie yesterday evening, although the DVD I bought is corrupt and hesitates to show me Alexander's taming of Bucephalus as well as Alexander's victory over Porus. Is that a weird coincidence or what? (I am not joking.)I would still prefer:1. The battle between Alexander and Porus as filmed in the 1941 Indian "Sikander" movie. I have been thinking about transferring my copy to AVI-format or streaming video and posting it on the internet. Amazing how realistic things can be without using special effects. This is the only modern version of an Alexander battle that I find convincing.2. Helm's Deep in Lord of the Rings. I wished "Alexander" had included scenes like this. At least you have the feeling there are really thousands of people at battle. Apart from the bird eye views, Stone's movie still gives me the impression it was just a provincial skirmish.3. In Stone's movie - yes, it was Marcus who said that he liked the initial moments of the Hydaspes. Hearing the enemy without seeing them. Unfortunaltely, I visted the Hydaspes area. This has been human agricultural land for centuries beyond rememberance. It doesn't remotely look like Stone's landscape in the picture. I doubt that it looked like the Thailand jungle in 326 BC.Regards ---Nick

[nickw]

O yes, and I would prefer the initial battle in Gladiator (however small scale, but it looks larger) far above Gaugamela in Stone's movie. (Please read Q. Curtius first and then ask yourself if you see what you've just read.)

[heinrich]

Yes, that's a good on; it looked authentic.Although I admit that I was amused (a) to see a Marcus Aurelius that looked like Obi Wan Kenobi and (b) to hear the Romans shout "Roma victor", which is rather poor Latin. Unfortunately, it seems to have become proverbial: a German author, Tony Domin, wrote a book with this title, and now there's a webgame: http://www.roma-victor.com/Still, the movie battle is a fine piece of cinema.HM

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[agesilaos]

For what it is worth I thought the battle scenes in 'Alexander' were rubbish. At Gaugamela, aside from Darius' laughably camp intructions to Bessos, Alexander turns right and rides straight off to the flank for what seems like an age before turning to charge straight, he would have exposed the phalanx completely,then to cut to panoramic shots is cinematographically weak, decent battle scenes like those in 'Cross of Iron' or 'Band of Brothers' are shot close up, even a mid-shot as in 'Waterloo' keeps the formations visable; the long shot to a swirl of dust is just lazy.In general ancient battles have not been well-filmed, 'Gladiator's' Vietnam opening Napalm the tree line! Was a bit of a laugh and it seemed to me that none of the extras can have wanted to be Germans, as the Romans had them outnumbered ten to one. 'Troy' was worse combining the longbows of merry England with a depth of formation that would have amazed even Epaminondas along with the 'Mummy Returns' let you and us run into each other and wrestle a bit fighting.All the best war films are about modern wars, presumably because the director can relate more easily, 'Der Brueke', 'Come and See', even 'Paths of Glory' or the original 'All Quiet on the Western Front'. 'The Duellists' is excellent but not really full of battle scenes. I live in hope, but until Europe gets its act together it is not much of one.

[nickw]

Karl, I am so happy with this reply of yours.I only spoke to people who thought that Stone's Alexander's battle scenes were really impressive. I always thought: if I imagine six or more Macedonian phalanxes closely together, forming their terryfing war of spears, I see something other than in the movie.If I imagine Alexander charging with his 1,800 Companion cavalry, I see something different than in the movie.If I read Curtius description of a Persian army, shining with gold, tunics with gems, dazzling colors, I see something different than the ramshackle, dust smitten warband in the movie.If I imagine Porus' war elephants, low esitimate 85, high estimate 200, I see something different than Stone's six elephs in the movie.And then: you are spot on. Darius' command signs in the movie are ridiculous. Who ever made that up? As if you could see along a 2.5 mile wide front (or was it even more?) and decide: you go there, you go there. The movie has presented audiences with no clue of scale nor intensity.It remains a disappointment, even when I rewatch it with new hopes at home.Nick

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[marcus]

Ah, Andrew, how on earth could I have forgotten Excalibur? That siege, with Patrick Stewart defending his castle until ARthur arrives, is fantastic - as you say, pure Mallian Town.I also really like the fog-bound battle at the end, when they all wipe each other out.Over the years I'd slightly gone off Excalibur, but you have reminded me what a great movie it is ... for the battle scenes at the very least!And, actually, I really like the battles in the recent "King Arthur" film - flawed though it was in a number of ways, I thought the fights were excellent.ATBMarcus

[kenny]

Hail CompanionsI saw nothing wrong with Alexanders charge to the right. Read the battle accounts Alexander rode way out to the right so to draw the Persian forces out that way to stop him flanking. As a result a gap did appear into which Alexander wedgde drove straight into.You call it silly Darius giving signals stating how would that be effective over a 2 mile front. Do you suggest that he shouted. Arm signals etc can be very clear and instructive.I doubt the guys on the wings could hear any orders Darius would choose to shout.Marcus I quite agree about Arthur and the tactics of trying to make the enemy bunch up on the ice to cause weight and fracture. Alas I found Clive Owen muck too wooden. Winston was exellent asw he always is.Kenny