DVD: "Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut"

[Efstathios]

The homosexual aspect was there in Alexander's real life, and Stone, unlike many other authors and directors, chose not to ignore or deny it -- for that I give him credit for courage.

Firstly, you are being absolute while there are no facts. You may wanna beileve that the homosexual aspect was there, but that doesnt mean that it was there. Maybe yes, maybe no, but without facts you cannot make statements like that. And thus, the following statement about Stone is also wrong. Many other authors and directors as you said, didnt ignore it, but since there are no facts, they didnt touch the matter, or just said "maybe".

Michael: If the numbers of the Macedonian and Greek casualties were much bigger then i suspect the army wouldnt be so willing to go to big battles after Issus or Gaugamela. And Parmenion who was generally in favor of not confronting the mass armies when there was a choise like this that Darius offered, would have started a mutiny. The fact that Parmenion chose to keep following Alexander's moves may show that the casualties were not big.

[Efstathios]

Oh, and this is what you give credit to Stone for? A well substanciated and historically accurate scene?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BonpFak0iW0

Total crap. Where was Hephaestion when Alexander was making it with Bagoas by the way?

You see, it has gone that far that in every way that you see it it is ridiculous.

[Paralus]

Michael: If the numbers of the Macedonian and Greek casualties were much bigger then i suspect the army wouldnt be so willing to go to big battles after Issus or Gaugamela. And Parmenion who was generally in favor of not confronting the mass armies when there was a choise like this that Darius offered, would have started a mutiny. The fact that Parmenion chose to keep following Alexander's moves may show that the casualties were not big.

Parmenion, like the army, had little choice. Only at the Beas, when the Macedonians realised that the only certainties in life were death and taxeis (to die in), did they refuse to continue. Up until Gaugamela, there was still an empire to be won.

The harsh tradition against Parmenion is bent in favour of the king's image. Parmenion is yesterday's man. Indeed he is to blame - according to the court tradition - for the casualties that dare not count their numbers at Gaugamela. The fighting on the left here was desperate. Diodorus uses the term "a great slaughter" and he applies it to the effect of the Persian right's charge upon the Macedonian left.

This was not a result of any Persian valour; nor was it the result of the fact that as the hypaspists led the infantry forward and to the right with their king, the left was stranded against a fierce flanking attack that had them rooted to the spot. This was, apparently, the result of Parmenion’s desultory performance which was brought about by his courage failing him due to age or resentment of Alexander. Propaganda. As are the numbers that give the Persian dead at 300,000 and the Macedonian at 100 (Arrian). Both are laughable.

Ditto Issus where the hypaspists, again likely following their king's charge, led the right of the infantry forward and the middle battalions of the phalanx were stranded and discombobulated in the river where gaps opened. In a preview of Cynoscephalae and Pydna where the Romans wreaked havoc among the breaks in the phalanx, the Greeks attacking "precisely where the gap was widest" resulting in a "violent struggle". The clue here is Arrian's "120 Macedonians of distinction". Those of little distinction - non nobles one assumes - are not listed. Curtius' 450 dead and 4,500 wounded most likely still understate it some ways.

Reinforcements too tell a story. Amyntas, after Issus and at the end of the siege of Gaza, was sent across the sea - in winter - to raise levies to bring to Asia. In the event, he returned after Gaugamela but with what amounted to another army: 13.500 (6,000 of them Macedonian). Between the spring of 334 and the winter of 331 an absolute minimum of 9,000 Macedonians had been added to the invasion army. It may be that the figure was nearer to 12,000 (the vagaries of the sources). And these are only the Macedonian numbers.

[Phoebus]

Evening Phoebus - or should I say 'morning. Are you in the habit of simply picking out lines from differing contributors’ posts to pick bones with? I had to have a read to see if you were actually addressing me or using lines I’d written simply to make a point to Karen.

Nothing of the sort, I assure you. I'm a recent arrival on the website, and I had a chance to look at some of the more recent topics. Many of the discussion points had been addressed; some others I thought it'd be worth querrying about.

Yes Alexander had “razed a city” and condemned “thousands of men” to death as well as others to slavery (for a price). That is not the point I was making. My view is that the Macedonian and Greek sources clearly underplay Macedonian casualty figures at Gaugamela (as they do in every major battle) and that Alexander will have been confronted by many Macedonian dead on this battlefield. Particularly on the left where his phalanx and cavalry were rooted to the spot in a desperate struggle occasioning "great slaughter" (Diodorus).

Am I missing something, or did I perhaps quote you from the wrong topic? I was referring to discussion about how realistic it was for the cinematic Alexander to have wept post-Gaugamela, given the previous experiences he had.

I will admit, though, that I should have separated some of these discussion points more clearly. I can see how they could have been confused--especially given the one that follows directly below. Apologies.

[Phoebus]

A quick note about Macedonians of distinction. Assuming a full-strength Macedonian phalanx, the highest-ranking men on the front lines would have been the roughly 35 commanders of each (theoretically) 256-man spheira/syntagma. It's unlikely that there were front-line infantrymen who were much higher-ranking than they.

That raises the question: what did Arrian consider to be a man of distinction? A phalanx 8 men deep would have featured a λοχαγος/lochagos at the head of every other file. There would have been roughly 550 of these men across the frontage of a 9,000-man phalanx at the previously stated depth. Them suffering greater than 20% losses (aside from the other losses in the front ranks) sounds plausible given the fight they were engaged in, does it not?

[Fiona]

The" two Hephaistions" ? The boy that was in the wrestling scene was the same blond boy in the Mieza scene. Patrick Carroll. He was sitting apart, not next to Alexander (a theme carried through the film, rightly or wrongly...wrongly I think, but nevertheless, the same boy.)

The wrestling scene, while in part was to introduce the "boys", it also reflects as Ptolemy pointed out in the narration, it was where he found his sanity, with his friends. And to introduce the idea that Hephaistion was always honest with him "Would you want me to let you win?"...again, that theme was not developed very fully except it was also a nifty way to introduce the "Hephaistion's thighs" quote.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to do Alexander justice, in a way that everyone agrees on, in a film. Stone went a way that did not dwell on the deeds (though had he enough money and time he would have) but the interior man. Obviously this was not what people wanted or it was not the interior man they see.

Like Burton's film, you just can't win. Part of the big flaw of THAT film was they spent so much time on his early years they ran out of "juice" and the later years were neglected. From a socioogical viewpoint, I do find it interesting that Hephaistion was pretty much completely left out. Too problematic?

The Final cut is my favourite, fleshed out. I do love this film, but then I really love Stone, have for decades. "My" Alexander is not his, but then I don't have the gumption to make a film about him either.

Hello athenas owl, thanks for your reply. Yes, Patrick Carroll is the boy in the wrestling scene, and the blond boy sitting apart from Alexander at Mieza, but the thing is, he wasn't orginally meant to play Hephaistion. I do like your point about the 'apartness' being carried forward, but I don't believe it was originally intended that way. I think that the boy sitting next to Alexander, and wearing a matching pendant (also carried forward into adulthood) was meant to be Hephaistion. But they filmed that scene first, and then the dark boy couldn't go to England to film the wrestling scene at Pinewood, so they had to give the part to Patrick Carroll, and have him speak Hephaistion's line at Mieza. That's why we don't see either of them say it, the camera is on Aristotle. So we have the 'real' Hephaistion sitting next to Alexander at Mieza, and the second Hephaistion in the wrestling scene.
I didn't see it myself, but a friend of mine did, and told me that Oliver Stone had admitted as much on one of those question-and-answer things he did on the Warner Bros website.

However, if you can 'see' Patrick Carroll as Hephaistion at Mieza, I can see that the scene would work for you. I can't, so for me, it doesn't.

I do agree with you so much that no-one will ever be able to do Alexander justice in a way that everyone agrees with, also that this film concentrated on the interior man.
I think it's a good thing that Stone had the definite plan that he was going to do that. I think he knew he couldn't do everything, show everything, so he made a decision to show what Alexander was like, rather than what he did.
So, in that sense, it didn't do him justice, because what he did is so vastly important, but just on the criterion of showing the interior man, I think Stone did a good job. As you say, it might not have been what people wanted to see, but although it's easy to think of events he missed out, it's harder to think of facets of personality that he missed out.

I agree with you about the Burton film, too. It started off promisingly, then seemed to run out of steam. Guilty of telescoping, same as Stone, but you can see why they have to do it. Some of the sets and costumes look laughably dated now, of course, but I have a great admiration for that film's script, particularly the excellent Athens scene.
And yes, Hephaistion was just one of the crowd in that one, wasn't he? I guess the world wasn't ready for him in - 1956, was it?
I agree very much with what Karen said about Stone actually pandering very much to conservative mores in his treatment of Hephaistion, but at least there is progress from the Burton film, (I'm ashamed to say I can't remember the director's name!) in that Hephaistion is a recognisable individual, and his importance to Alexander is there to be seen. Some may have wished for more, maybe some for less, but surely all will agree he deserves to stand out from the crowd.
Sorry about this long reply, but your post was so interesting!
Fiona

[Paralus]

Yes Alexander had “razed a city” and condemned “thousands of men” to death as well as others to slavery (for a price). That is not the point I was making. My view is that the Macedonian and Greek sources clearly underplay Macedonian casualty figures at Gaugamela (as they do in every major battle) and that Alexander will have been confronted by many Macedonian dead on this battlefield. Particularly on the left where his phalanx and cavalry were rooted to the spot in a desperate struggle occasioning "great slaughter" (Diodorus).

Am I missing something, or did I perhaps quote you from the wrong topic? I was referring to discussion about how realistic it was for the cinematic Alexander to have wept post-Gaugamela, given the previous experiences he had.

Correct topic but, yes, you are missing something:

“He may well have shed a tear at the mess that his left had become. But, he may not. That’s artistic license.”

The closing line of the post, left off the above.

A phalanx 8 men deep would have featured a λοχαγος/lochagos at the head of every other file. There would have been roughly 550 of these men across the frontage of a 9,000-man phalanx at the previously stated depth. Them suffering greater than 20% losses (aside from the other losses in the front ranks) sounds plausible given the fight they were engaged in, does it not?

No argument there. The point I was attempting to make was that Arrian is content only to record “Macedonians of distinction”, for which we would likely read officer class. The losses, given the infiltration of the phalanx breaches, will have extended well beyond the lochagos or pentakosiarch “distinction”. Arrian, for whatever reason, seems content not “to do body counts” of these individuals. Therefore the figures, as given by Arrian, are quite ridiculous for the whole.

[Semiramis]

Quote:
- the totally human, weak, flawed and needy Alexander compared to the god or hero. He cries, he's a mamma's boy, he reveres Homer's poetry... And then he conquers the world. Such a refreshing change from the modern western strong silent boring macho ideal.

I saw nothing refreshing about yet another director injecting his own take on how a person may or may not have been. Stone merely took the polar opposite approach to what you rail against. If he wished to write fiction, I wonder why he didn't write his own story?

I totally see your point Pheobus. As I've stated before, the "fictional" Alexander to me is a totally different beast to "my real Alexander". Take Renault for example - her Alexander is a total sweetheart, a bit like Stone's sensitive, new age Alexander. But in reality, I highly doubt the guy cried for the dead in Gaugamela or spent more time worrying about Hephaistion, Roxanne or Bagoas' feelings than war, killing and power.

Why didn't Stone spend more than a sentence on the destruction of Thebes? Why did he omit Tyre, Gaza entirely? Why did it look like Alexander's army suffered more from the Indians than the other way around? Why didn't he dwell more on Alexander's pretensions to being the Son of Amon?

Here is the thing - wouldn't that just make Alexander look like a psychopathic megalomaniacal killing machine? Would you sympathise with his character? Would you pay money to sit through a movie that glorifies someone like that?

Stone wanted Alexander to be the good guy and that meant focusing on his mummy and daddy issues, his boyfriend and wife issues and the battles that were fought between equal armies. Did you really want to see our hero massacre poorly armed tribes defending their territory before marrying a 16 year old in Sogdiana?

By the way, I’m really enjoying reading your posts. Even when you so thoroughly disagree with me.

Fiona,

Thank you so much for clearing up those “young Hephaistion” scenes! I had found the whole thing really confusing till now. I have to disagree with you and Karen a little about Stone pandering to conservative mores regarding the portrayal Alexander and Hephaistion’s relationship. Just because we do see a bit of sex between Alexander and Bagoas, so it doesn’t look like Stone was trying to avoid sex scenes between men.

I think the lack of sex was meant to put more emphasis on the love and loyalty part of Alexander and Hephaistion's relationship. You could see Aristotle’s speech about “men lying together in knowledge and virtue”, Alexander and Hephaistion’s moment of denying themselves “on the eve of battle” with promises to “follow you to Hades”, all as part of that theme?

But saying that, you guys do have a point. I couldn’t believe how much emphasis critics and the media put on the “gay” aspect of the movie. There was even talk of Stone being sued for “besmirching” our hero. So, plenty of homophobia... oh sorry I mean "discomfort"... to deal with still in this day and age...

Ciao all

[Phoebus]

I totally see your point Pheobus. As I've stated before, the "fictional" Alexander to me is a totally different beast to "my real Alexander". Take Renault for example - her Alexander is a total sweetheart, a bit like Stone's sensitive, new age Alexander. But in reality, I highly doubt the guy cried for the dead in Gaugamela or spent more time worrying about Hephaistion, Roxanne or Bagoas' feelings than war, killing and power.

Ah, I see. In that case, I've no choice but to agree with you. I'll admit that I all too often expect probably more "historical integrity" than I should from works that make no bones about being works of art/fiction.

Here is the thing - wouldn't that just make Alexander look like a psychopathic megalomaniacal killing machine? Would you sympathise with his character? Would you pay money to sit through a movie that glorifies someone like that?

I guess that's where the challenge of art comes in. A few decades ago, I would totally agree with you. Movie-going audiences were likely not prepared to see their "heroes" (Richard the Lionheart, Leonidas, Alexander, etc.) depicted doing what it was they did during their lives. Similarly, I doubt they were prepared to accept personages like Saladin, Dareius, etc., portrayed as heroes.

Today, though, I think things are somewhat different. I think that we are somewhat more cynical and are thus better conditioned to accept these curveballs. Would we necessarily like Alexander? Maybe. Maybe not. I think that most of us would at the least be impressed, however, by a movie that did justice to the scope of his deeds. Stone went for the reverse. He attempted to show Alexander the man, but compromised on the deeds--which is precisely what the average cinema-goer in the US showed up for. I think the results speak for themselves.

By the way, I’m really enjoying reading your posts. Even when you so thoroughly disagree with me.

Thanks, and I do want to say that I didn't mean to come off as aggressive or hostile. I know that the forum format doesn't necessarily allow for the best kind of interaction.

Ciao,
P.

[Fiona]

Fiona,

Thank you so much for clearing up those “young Hephaistion” scenes! I had found the whole thing really confusing till now. I have to disagree with you and Karen a little about Stone pandering to conservative mores regarding the portrayal Alexander and Hephaistion’s relationship. Just because we do see a bit of sex between Alexander and Bagoas, so it doesn’t look like Stone was trying to avoid sex scenes between men.

I think the lack of sex was meant to put more emphasis on the love and loyalty part of Alexander and Hephaistion's relationship. You could see Aristotle’s speech about “men lying together in knowledge and virtue”, Alexander and Hephaistion’s moment of denying themselves “on the eve of battle” with promises to “follow you to Hades”, all as part of that theme?

But saying that, you guys do have a point. I couldn’t believe how much emphasis critics and the media put on the “gay” aspect of the movie. There was even talk of Stone being sued for “besmirching” our hero. So, plenty of homophobia... oh sorry I mean "discomfort"... to deal with still in this day and age...

Ciao all

Another thing about the Mieza scene that's funny, is little Nearchus, who's so cute, looking about three years younger than everyone else, then looking about twenty years older than the others by the time they get to Bactria...obviously had a hard life, Nearchus!

I agree with you about the lack of any sex scene between Alexander and Hephaistion serving to emphasise the love and loyalty of their relationship. It may be that Stone didn't chicken out, but that he genuinely felt that a sex scene, in a movie, would have overshadowed, in some people's minds, all that they were to each other, which had to be about so much more than sex. If he was thinking along those lines, then I think he was right.
But having said that, it did raise a wry smile to see how 'feminine-looking' he made Hephaistion appear, in the balcony scene in particular. Making it easy to swallow, I wonder? But, to his credit, at least he lets Hephaistion be just as tough and violent as everyone else at Gaugamela. There was a bit more of him fighting in the Final Cut, if I remember rightly.
But yes, didn't Alexander and Hephaistion exemplify to perfection the truth of Aristotle's words about love between men? He imagined a love so good it could build a city-state - theirs built an empire!

Fiona

[Paralus]

But yes, didn't Alexander and Hephaistion exemplify to perfection the truth of Aristotle's words about love between men? He imagined a love so good it could build a city-state - theirs built an empire!Fiona

Oh dear.

[Semiramis]

But having said that, it did raise a wry smile to see how 'feminine-looking' he made Hephaistion appear, in the balcony scene in particular. Making it easy to swallow, I wonder? But, to his credit, at least he lets Hephaistion be just as tough and violent as everyone else at Gaugamela. There was a bit more of him fighting in the Final Cut, if I remember rightly.

That's an excellent observation. Hand on heart, I was way too busy gawking at the beautiful Jared Leto in the balcony scene to have had any coherent thoughts. Hephaistion was perhaps the most feminized out of the lot. Although, Alexander himself wasn't far behind. Ptolemy also, with eye-liner, jewellery and "Central Asian" clothing. This was my theory for the eye-liner and jewellery on another thread. What do you think?

"As someone else suggested, in the Stone movie, the further away Alexander goes from Macedonia the more "orientalized" he seems to get. The hair, together with the eye-liner and Persian/ Central Asian clothes and jewelery certainly suggest something like that. Add this to the observation that Hephaistion and Ptolemy head in the same "exotic" direction while Parmenion, Cassander, Cleitus etc always look just as Macedonian as ever. Nicely complements the Macedonia vs Asia arguments that Alexander has with these three characters. Perhaps I've overthought this one! "

[Fiona]

That's an excellent observation. Hand on heart, I was way too busy gawking at the beautiful Jared Leto in the balcony scene to have had any coherent thoughts. Hephaistion was perhaps the most feminized out of the lot. Although, Alexander himself wasn't far behind. Ptolemy also, with eye-liner, jewellery and "Central Asian" clothing. This was my theory for the eye-liner and jewellery on another thread. What do you think?

"As someone else suggested, in the Stone movie, the further away Alexander goes from Macedonia the more "orientalized" he seems to get. The hair, together with the eye-liner and Persian/ Central Asian clothes and jewelery certainly suggest something like that. Add this to the observation that Hephaistion and Ptolemy head in the same "exotic" direction while Parmenion, Cassander, Cleitus etc always look just as Macedonian as ever. Nicely complements the Macedonia vs Asia arguments that Alexander has with these three characters. Perhaps I've overthought this one! "

No, I think you're absolutely right, the costumes, hair, jewellery and everything get more and more exotic and different the further east they go, but only for the 'sympathetic to integration' characters, which makes a great contrast to the ones who are still resolutely clinging to Greek dress, albeit with a nice sheepskin as a concession to the climate! I don't think it's overdone, either - I notice that when in uniform, 'on duty' as it were, they still look like Greek soldiers. I think it's a great visual aid and helps the audience sense the distance travelled, both geographically and mentally by some characters, while others have only travelled geographically. Their minds are still in Macedon. (Not necessarily a bad thing - I do sympathise with some of their arguments in the scene discussing the wedding to Roxane. I like the way Stone shows where they're coming from.)
It's certainly a treat for the eyes, and the sumptuous sets equally thrilling too. And I do so agree with you about how amzing Jared Leto looked, especially in the balcony scene. Absolutely mesmerising!
Getting back to the way Stone made him look more 'feminine' in some scenes - I think it's noticeable that in the three scenes where they nearly kiss - you know the ones I mean! - Hephaistion's costume is softened. In the balcony scene, it's soft already - that flowing robe, and didn't he look good in it - and then the night before Gaugamela, the blanket over his uniform, and then the wedding night, with the furs around his neck.
I think Stone did that on purpose, and his probable reasons make me a bit sad. But looking on the bright side, it was very beautiful to look at!
Fiona

[karen]

Harking back to a couple of previous posts: I think that Stone tried to explore the inner Alexander because, in terms of artistic considerations, that has to be the way to go with Alexander the Great. Why? Because if you concentrate on the story of his campaign, think of how it goes. He wins. He marches his army somewhere else, and wins. He has a bit of a setback, but then figures a way around it, and wins. He wins, and wins again.

See what I mean? Borrrrrrring... entirely predictable. Alexander's adult life has the shape of a spectacularly successful long-term military campaign... not a movie or book plot, which requires increasing tension for most of its length, up to a climax and then a denouement.

(Aside: This is why I've always felt that just the siege of Tyre would make a great movie. Shot from the point of view of both sides... starts maybe with Alexander's envoys being thrown off the walls, and him deciding he's going to GET this place no matter what it takes, even though with no ships it seems impossible... the mole grows longer, the tension mounts... the two sides one-up each other with devious moves, the tension mounts... an unexpected factor is brought in by the arrival of Phoenician ships now allied with Alexander, so inside the city the tension really mounts... divers cutting ropes, soldiers getting red-hot sand inside their breastplates, 200-foot siege towers going up in flames, etc., etc. etc., and tension mounting right up until the final bloody resolution, roll credits over a shot of 2,000 crucifixions on a beach... whew.)

Anyway, authors and directors don't want to concentrate on the military aspect too much. What's left? The inner man and his personal relationships -- which seem fairly messed up so there's some story potential there. But here they run into another problem: due to the mythos Alexander created around himself, plus the loss of information over time, we don't actually know the inner man, or even that much about his personal relationships. They'd love to do a bildungsroman (like the new Egyptian movie we're cringing about in that other thread) -- who isn't fascinated by how such a personality is formed? -- but, same thing: no one knows anything except that his parents didn't get along, he studied with Aristotle and he tamed this horse. And his mom told him he was the son of Zeus, maybe.

So they interpolate as best they can, and -- whether it's because they can't help it, or because they think it's necessary to reach a modern audience -- they use modern tropes and assumptions and values. They bring their own issues into it, or perceived audience fantasies, or just plain weirdness (e.g. Alexander & Roxane cat-hissing at each other in the Stone movie) -- since, absent fact, they can just say it's artistic license.

And so the story loses internal consistency and emotional plausibility. You present Alexander as a sensitive new age guy who cries after battles so as to make him likeable, and it just doesn't work, because everyone knows he lived to fight and win and conquer, since there's no other plausible explanation for how he lived his life. You present him as an emotionless amoral psycho, since in the modern world that's what we think mass killers are, and that doesn't work either, because everyone knows about how devastated he was by the death of Hephaistion, plus the other signs of a certain delicacy and adherence to a moral code -- and besides, emotionless psychos tend to be boring, and a lot of people find this guy darned interesting, for some reason.

Stone's doing the mommy-and-daddy thing because there's a story there -- uncertainty, rivalry and hence tension -- and he knows it's something we can all relate to, since we've all had parents. Same with the Hephaistion-Roxane-Bagoas thing -- uncertainty, rivalry, tension, and we've all had relationships, been jealous, etc. A good many of us, even, have married people just like our parent of the appropriate sex. (Sigh.) It's fairly safe in terms of plausibility because these sorts of things are basic human psychology and thus haven't changed all that much. I think in that sense, Stone was playing it safe. He even countered the win-win-win-yawn factor by having Alexander kind of lose the battle of the Hydaspes rather than win uninjured as he did in real life.

But there's the problem. Stone can't make a movie out of it without speculating and altering. So many people look at the life of Alexander and think it should be easy to make into a great piece of art. They're wrong. Else more would have succeeded. One person and one person alone -- Mary Renault -- has been able to produce something that's generally admired and appreciated.

I think it's those two factors -- a reliable and therefore predictable string of military victories, and the lack of information about the inner man -- more even than the sheer staggering number of events, that make the Alexander story chew up and spit out virtually all those who have the nerve to try to tell it. I have my own strategy for dealing with them for the books I'm writing, but I know I might get chewed up and spat out nonetheless...........

Karen

[Phoebus]

... I think that Stone tried to explore the inner Alexander because, in terms of artistic considerations, that has to be the way to go with Alexander the Great. Why? Because if you concentrate on the story of his campaign, think of how it goes. He wins. He marches his army somewhere else, and wins. He has a bit of a setback, but then figures a way around it, and wins. He wins, and wins again.

See what I mean? Borrrrrrring... entirely predictable.

I respectfully reserve the right to disagree.

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, his assumption of the mantle of Upper and Lower Egypt, the baccanalia that supposedly culminated in burning the Persian palaces, etc. There are many other "little moments" offered by Plutarch, Arrian, etc., that could be built into memorable scenes. More below.

Alexander's adult life has the shape of a spectacularly successful long-term military campaign... not a movie or book plot, which requires increasing tension for most of its length, up to a climax and then a denouement.

I believe the real problem is that Alexander's life can't successfully be told over the course of a single movie. I know trilogies are so passe at this point, but I feel that an extended format could have allowed far more depth for a depiction of his times. With a condensed format you are forced to find a way to leave things out without compromising his story. And I personally feel that this is improbable.

Anyway, authors and directors don't want to concentrate on the military aspect too much.

An odd sentiment given the subject matter, but I hear you.

Beyond that, I completely agree with your deconstruction of how Stone went about business. Personally, though, I feel that there are enough details to amuse and interest in a cinematic format. I also think that, properly used, they could have easily made for a smash hit in the US. I mean, I hate comparing apples to oranges, but look at "Gladiator". There certainly wasn't much of a story there, and the plot was about as predictable as they can get. The Oscars rolled in, though, and it grossed 5-6 times more than "Alexander" in the same market.