A review of 'Responses to Oliver Stone's Alexander'

[Fiona]

I remember Alexias asked for a review of this book when I'd finished it, and it may be that others might like one too, so here it is.
This review has also been posted at 'Alexander's Army'.
Fiona

Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander : film, history and cultural studies, edited by Paul Cartledge and Fiona Rose Greenland, University of Wisconsin Press, 2010

A Review

In some ways, it doesn’t matter if this book is good or not; the mere fact that it exists is a tribute to its subject, and is, I hope, the beginning of a process of re-assessment that will end in this astonishing film gaining the reputation it deserves. What other film, popularly tarnished with the epithet ‘box-office failure’, has within a decade been the subject of a profound and scholarly review by no fewer than thirteen academic specialists?
Its reputation, sadly, is in no doubt. Whether that reputation was deserved is far more doubtful. True, it failed to meet expectations in the USA and in the UK, but the film-watching world is bigger than the English-speaking world, and Oliver Stone mentions nine language areas where it succeeded very well. The book considers in great depth why the film failed to meet the expectations of the cinema-going public in some countries, and it’s sad to realise that many of the reasons had little to do with the film itself, and more to do with cultural prejudices and unrealistic expectations.
What is consistently heartening, from writer after writer, is their fairness. Weaknesses are identified, no question, but with precision and courtesy, backed up with real knowledge, that would leave even the film’s greatest fan pursing her lips and muttering, “Well, yes, that’s a fair point”. After the superficiality, rudeness and pettiness of much press comment at the time of the film’s release, even criticisms, phrased as well as this, can be soothing.
And it’s not all criticism – by no means. Credit is given where it is due, and in no small measure. Many excellences are remarked upon, and this is where there is such great value in bringing together so many specialists. The reader can benefit from the thoughts of a professor of ancient history on the amount of Persian royal ideology seen in the portrayal of Alexander, but also from the insights, from an art historian, into Oliver Stone’s film-making to be gained from a consideration of Fellini’s Satyricon. It’s unlikely than a single author could have brought us both of those points, and this is just a single example of a richness that is spread out before us from start to finish.
After an introduction by the editors, the fourteen essays (the last being a response from Oliver Stone himself) are grouped into five sections. The first section, entitled ‘Stone’s Alexander’ gives us Joanna Paul’s thoughts on the place of Alexander in the cinematic epic tradition, and an analysis by Jon Solomon of the popular reception of Alexander.
The second section, ‘Precursors of Alexander’, gives us Robin Lane Fox talking about Alexander on stage, comparing the film with Rattigan’s play, and then Kim Shahabudin doing the same thing with Robert Rossen’s earlier film.
Part Three is called ‘Alexander’s Intimates: Sexuality and Gender’, and here we have Marilyn B Skinner on ancient Greek sexuality, Elizabeth D Carney on gender and sex stereotyping with special reference to Olympias, Monica Silveira Cyrino on gender stereotypes and Colin Farrell’s performance, and Jeanne Reames on Hephaestion.
Part Four is called ‘Alexander’s Dream: Macedonians and Foreigners’ with Thomas Harrison revisiting Tarn v. Badian and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones on the depiction of Persian women.
Part Five, ‘Ways of Viewing Alexander’, is an analysis of the use of myth in the film, by Verity Platt, then John F Cherry on the responses of museums to Alexander.
Finally, Oliver Stone responds to some of the precise points made, in his afterword.
There are omissions; readers whose primary interest in Alexander is military will find no analysis of battle scenes, and no-one quarrelling with the lack of elephants at Gaugamela, or the mix-and-match Indian battle. There is nothing much about the script. It would have been interesting to read the verdict of some writer of repute, and also the thoughts of a professional composer on Vangelis’ score.
However, such wishes are probably going beyond responses, and that is what the book is all about. As Paul Cartledge says in his introduction:
“All of these contributors, as was our intention, uses Alexander as a kind of muse – or, one might say, as an intellectual tinderbox that sparks discussion about its actors, costumes, storyline, scenery, sociopolitical setting, and place in cinematic and cinematographic history.”
I suspect that, in general, each reader will enjoy most those chapters which cover areas which are not his or her specialism. I certainly found the chapter called ‘The Cult of Hephaestion’ the most frustrating, and the one called ‘The Appearance of History’ the most illuminating, dealing as it did with aspects of film-making, Hollywood conventions and genre, with which I was less familiar. Each chapter is very well-written, no question; liveliness and tight argument are found throughout the book. Many of the writers are, however, a little careless in building a rapport with the reader. It’s because they often have to discuss what ‘the audience’ might have felt, thought, understood, etc, and they seem to have an image in their heads of a popcorn-swilling simpleton, forgetting that it is extremely likely that everyone reading their book was in the audience, and might take exception to this.
Every single audience member will have brought widely-differing levels of knowledge and experience to bear upon their response to the film, and those who write of ‘fans’ with an air of tolerance might be interested to know that vast numbers of the points made in these chapters have in fact been made on fan forums over the last five years. Without pointing the finger, there is a bit too much ‘academics this… audience that’, which smacks rather of ivory towers and condescension. However, when their learning brings such a rich feast as this, it would be unfair to complain too much about this small point.
That’s probably as far as it is fair to go in a review of the book as a whole, because the chapters are crammed with good stuff and each deserves a review of its own. But if you are interested enough in the film to have got this far through the review, then I guarantee that some points will have you cheering, and some will have you wanting to do a Dorothy Parker and ‘hurl aside with great force’. For some readers, no doubt, the points that make me cheer will be the ones that make you want to hurl, and vice versa – but I don’t think there was any chapter that provoked only one of those responses. That’s how even-handed it is – you’ll be cheering and hurling in every chapter alike.
In conclusion, I would say that if you liked the film, you’ll enjoy reading this book, and however many times you’ve seen the film, you might well find something you’d missed. I did, and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen it.
If you didn’t like the film, I still think you will find much of interest, simply because most people reading this will be history buffs, not film buffs, and the sheer depth of insight from the film writers into just what Oliver Stone was trying to do, might well show you some things from a different point of view.
The mythopoiesis goes on – this book is part of it, and so, with our discussions, fan-fiction writing and lack of indifference, are we.

[athenas owl]

Fantastic review Fiona.

This has been on my wishlist for a bit...I need to dig into the fun fund (hah...fun is spelled IRS, it is that time of year. ) and get it. Along with a couple of others...

Do you use Amazon? They could really use this review.

Thank you.

[marcus]

Hi Fiona,

Many thanks for this. I have the book, although I haven't yet got round to reading it - too many others on my "to-read" pile at the moment. I had had a quick glance through, and got a feeling that it would be a good read, and an even-handed one. I look forward to casting aside the rest of my pile and getting to grips with this one!

ATB

[Alexias]

Dear Fiona,

Thank you very much for this review. You certainly make it seem a very vibrant and interesting read, and the book is next on my list to read. I have so far only read Jeanne Reames chapter - which a found a rather negative view of Hephaestion, a re-working of her doctoral thesis and not really about the portrayal of Hephaestion in the film.

It essentially repeats the view that Hephaestion functioned as Alexander's wife, and didn't quite measure up to Alexander's other commanders as a soldier. Particularly with her analysis of Hephaestion's command of the column in Sogdiana, I get the impression that the evidence is being bent to fit the conclusion. This poor view of Hephaestion's military capabilities is a view that, in my opinion, does not consider:

1. Hephaestion's age in relation to Alexander's other commander's (especially if he was younger than Alexander)
2. His lack of family connections that would have given him early command experience
3. The incompleteness of the evidence. For example, the only military command reference we have for Eumenes is in India where he was sent with 300 soldiers to capture 2 cities (Heckel), whose inhabitants fled before his arrival. Yet no one questions Eumenes military ability and after Alexander's death he proved himself a more than competent commander. After Hephaestion's death, Alexander gave Perdiccas's Hipparchy to Eumenes - would he really have given this prestigious command to a complete novice? None of Eumenes' or Hephaestion's contemporaries question their military record, so why should we on our incomplete evidence?
4. Hephaestion's function as Alexander's Bodyguard, which was surely to fight beside Alexander in the major battles and, if he fell, possibly take command if he was Alexander's second. How successful he would have been is another matter of course.
5. An unspoken assumption that Alexander's nepotism, because it was nepotism and therefore not morally defensible in modern eyes, was unjustified. Yet did Hephaestion fail in any of his assignments? Is there any hint in the sources that he was incomptent? It is natural for anyone in power to surround themselves with like-minded people, but because personal friendship was involved, Hephaestion's promotion does not necessarily argue blindness on Alexander's part. Surely the opposite also holds true and that given the very personal nature of power in Macedon, to surround oneself with friends in high places - as we see with Parmenion's network of alliances - strengthened one's grip on power.

I would also have welcomed an analysis of why, in the portrayal of Hephaestion, Oliver Stone chose to deviate from Mary Renault's view of him as Alexander's erastes when he had followed her view of the psychological development of Alexander's character. Was it that he didn't wish to run the risk of Alexander appearing feminine? Hephaestion's role in the film was obviously as a confidante for Alexander to express his innermost thoughts to, and as a sympathetic romantic interest - but why then did he disappear after Roxanne's arrival, yet we are supposed to believe that he his still more important to Alexander than anyone else. I would have liked a discussion of Alexander's repeated betrayals in this film. Maybe this is one of the reasons the film was not a box office success - it concentrated on Alexander's failures rather than his achievements.

PS I was going to comment on this chapter in lj but it was outside the scope of my essay (and thanks for your comments! kizzy)

[Fiona]

Hi Alexias (I didn't realise who you were! That is so cool.)
Yes, to a lot of us, this is the important chapter, and the one we all read first! I agree very much that it's rather negative and repeats her own position without responding very much to the portrayal in the film. There's an analysis of the three main scenes, and some interesting comments on his foils and protagonists, but that's about it. Her comments about his 'fans' were probably interesting to people who didn't know about us, but we already knew this, because we are them.
She seems to think we are only interested in the love story. (Perish the thought... )
To be fair, though, I think she is pointing out that although Hephaistion is presented as "private encourager, yes-man and lover", there's so much missing. She goes on to say "The other side of Hephaestion - as military officer and chiliarch - is virtually ignored".
That is promising, as far as it goes, and like you, she defends him against the charge of nepotism, but then seems to go through all military references only to belittle their significance.
I agree with you that the extraordinary conclusion about Sogdiana gives the impression of evidence being bent. Is she so enamoured of Hephaistion the 'diplomat and logistics expert', her beloved 'eminence grise' (pah!) that she can't see a thoroughly competent commander when he is leading an entire column through hostile territory?
And as for that table of his assigments, words fail me. She still hasn't got her head round the difference between logistics and engineering, though she does mention building now, so that is something, I suppose.
I think your point about the incompleteness of the evidence is very important. Just because the names of the Somatophylakes are not listed until Peucestas' appointment doesn't mean we have to be over-cautious and assume that Hephaistion's appointment to that rank is undatable. It could have been long before he became hipparch or chiliarch.
I agree, too, that it would have been interesting to see more questions about Oliver Stone's approach. True, he does follow Mary Renault a great deal, especially with Bagoas, but perhaps he is just picking and choosing, and because he had to use a broad palette, he simply chose to sketch in Hephaistion as soul-mate and confidant. Personally, I am grateful for that much - it could have been so much worse - but the questions you list are ones it would have been good to see raised in this chapter.
So, yes, this chapter was rather frustrating, but don't let that put you off reading the rest of the book - some of it is balm to the soul, and some is enlightening and thought-provoking.
Best wishes,
Fiona

[Fiona]

Thank you! Amazon, hmm, that's a thought. I could do that.
Hope the IRS don't sting you too badly!
Fiona

Fantastic review Fiona.

This has been on my wishlist for a bit...I need to dig into the fun fund (hah...fun is spelled IRS, it is that time of year. ) and get it. Along with a couple of others...

Do you use Amazon? They could really use this review.

Thank you.

[Alexias]

Frustrating, yes! I'm glad you didn't find my comments offensive - I wasn't sure if JR's views were considered sacred. I never did understand the 'eminence grise' - it sounds like Hephaestion was some grey, mysterious, Machiavellian cardinal. Now there would be a novel! I shall go and begin reading the other chapters forthwith.