To Gain the Essence.

[iskander_32]

Companions hail,, We all talk aboutthe movies and movies in general.I feel for any movie to own credibility the Director strives to find the essence of the character.Once that is achieved then I feel anyone would be happy with a movie.Peter Jackson Gained it with the Rings and Mel Gibson with Braveheart,,, To undsrstand and apreciate what the character is about is the biggy for me and will see If Stone does it with Alexander.I feel that this is the crux with our guy and the audience are getting sold short. There is hardly a chance we can know or realise Alexander with 3 hours I wonder how many of us feel wee know the essence of Alexander?Maybe the story is too big for hollywood anyway to do him justice really,, Id swap a thousand movies just to sit besides the river chatting to the guy.
Kenny

[jona]

"Maybe the story is too big for hollywood": I guess you're right. As Plutarch once remarked, a person's character can often better be "caught" in a minor incident, a sayimg, or even a joke, than in a big narrative. We recently discussed alternative Alexander movies, and (if I recall correctly) you suggested that Tyre alone could have been a movie; and I fully agree that this would have been a better movie. "In der Beschr+ñnkung zeigt sich der Meister", as the Germans say: a master artist shows his quality by leaving the non-essential away.Jona

[ruthaki]

In writing about history (fiction in particular) there is a big problem containing the 'whole story' and it works best to zero in on certain aspects or 'scenes. I've just run into these problems with the Sappho play I've been writing (attending a playwright's workshop conducted by a director/dramaturge). The big problem was trying to fit in too much of the "history" from all the research I've done about Sappho. It made the play too complicated. So I've been advised to zero in on just particular events or episodes. These means leaving a lot out that I wanted to address, but it will make a better play.
I think in writing the script for "Alexander" Stone faced this too, such a massive amount of history to cover. Perhaps the script isn't a good as some people think it should have been, but considering the depth of the character and the immensity of the events in his life it covered, it isn't too bad. Not brilliant, but workable. For me anyway. Some weak lines for sure. But, think about it... who of us "really" know Alexander. We draw our conclustions from what we've studied or read. Nobody will 'really' know him until that day we reach "the other side" and can actually sit by that River and talk to him. I wish...ruthaki

[luisfc1972]

braveheart is my favorite movie of all time. mel gibsons portrayal of that man was awesome. oliver stones alexander did not portray the fearless and brilliant military commander that i wanted to see. i admire Alexander more than any general in history, so it hurts to say this. mel gibsons william wallace runs through oliver stones magnos alexandros like a tank.

[boris]

The film of Braveheart however, is not that historically accurate and has taken a lot of creative licences and invention, particularly in making William Wallace into an idealised and romanticised hero.He was a good fighter for sure, and did fight the english and fought them well, but at times Braveheart is almost a fairy tale perfect hero which he wasnt.

[luisfc1972]

i understand that. im just saying william wallace in braveheart is far more convincing as a charismatic leader than alexander in stones movie.