Alexander (2004) Scripts #4

[Alexias]

7139_900.jpg (118.39 KiB) Viewed 9645 times

[Paralus]

I don't recall that being in the film. But then, I've not watched it for quite some years. The film which ended any chance of a decent Alexander film. Last I watched I got to the battle of "Granigamela" and then asked myself "why?" If anything, the marshaling/deployment scenes for that battle are the film's highlight.

For the life of me I cannot re-watch Hephaistion's death scene. All the nonsense about a "brotherhood of man" while Heph gurgles his last is just a silliness too far me.

[Alexias]

Yes, these scripts show how close Stone's original view of Hephaestion was to Renault's view of him as self-appointed protector of Alexander. Whether it was Stone or Leto's performance, the end product conveyed more accurately what is implied in the sources, that Hephaestion was Alexander's 'boy', not the other way round.

The death scene is ridiculous, and it was toned down a bit in the other cuts.

As for the battles scenes, I somehow felt that they could have been more threatening. Some of the men looked like you could push them over with a feather, rather than tough soldiers, and there was just too much fake blood everywhere.

[Emma]

Yes, these scripts show how close Stone's original view of Hephaestion was to Renault's view of him as self-appointed protector of Alexander.

Doesn't Renault refer to Alexander as the 'boy'?
As for the movie, even if Alexander and Hephaestion were lovers (and I go for the option they were lovers at a young age) and Hephaestion was Alexander's boy, I don't think Stone and Leto give us even a shadow of the man he was. the Macedonian soldiers would never let a man with painted-doe eyes get to command them, and I really can't see Alexander grieving so much about such a person.

the end product conveyed more accurately what is implied in the sources, that Hephaestion was Alexander's 'boy', not the other way round.

that interesting. what in the sources makes you believe the most that Hepaestion was the boy?

For me, if Hepaestion was the 'boy', the real question is why the sources don't tell us anything about this.
Perhaps the answer depends on each source's opinion of Alexander. Hephaetion, of course, is not the main focus of the story.
It seems Plutarch doesn't like Hephaestion, but his Alexander is almost perfect so he can't destroy his perfect character with such gossip.
Curtius, on the other hand, has no problem implying this, using that strange comparison between Hephaestion and Euxenippus (Curtius 7.9.19).

I have to say, despite all of this I find it hard to accept that none of the sources mentioned such gossip, given that Hephaestion had quite a few enemies at court. Being Alexander's boy was not a compliment to him; I think someone would have to use it. the total silence in the sources is strange.
(Therefore, I go for the option that they were lovers only at a young age and the rest was just gossip. the fact that Curtius bothers to emphasize that Hepheastion doesn't claim his privileges (Curtius 3.12.16) makes me think there was a gossip that at least suspected Alexander was the boy.)

[Alexias]

Doesn't Renault refer to Alexander as the 'boy'?

If I remember rightly, it was the soldiers in Fire from Heaven who referred to Alexander as 'boy', though in an affectionate, not derogatory way. But I was thinking of the episode in The Persian Boy where Hephaestion ruffles Alexander's hair and Bagoas, secretly watching, thinks something along the lines, you make him a boy, but I will make him a man.

I would agree with you that A&H were lovers as boys, but it might have continued into their early twenties. However I doubt they were lifelong lovers, and they certainly weren't a couple in the modern sense.

that interesting. what in the sources makes you believe the most that Hepaestion was the boy?

Alexander's known liking for boys, Curtius's Euxenippus statement, Epictetus's statement quoted by Aristotle about Alexander's 'loved one'. We cannot know what went on behind closed doors, but there is perhaps an unspoken assumption in the sources that Alexander, as king, cannot have been ruled by anyone else. If there was any hint of this in their public relationship, it would weaken Alexander's position as king, and this is why we don't really know anything definite about their relationship. I also think that this is why Hephaestion was very careful not to be seen to be dictating to, or exerting control over Alexander vis. your reference to Curtius. He was also, I think, protecting himself and not wishing to be seen to be too arrogant or too powerful in determining Alexander's policies.

For me, if Hepaestion was the 'boy', the real question is why the sources don't tell us anything about this.

Either because they didn't know for definite, or maybe more probably, they didn't think it was that important, especially if they were no longer lovers beyond what was considered acceptable for young men. So long as the relationship wasn't scandalous and Hephaestion wasn't taking advantage of his relationship with Alexander, and Alexander wasn't giving him preferment that he didn't deserve, there wasn't really anything to reproach him with.

[Emma]

I doubt they were lifelong lovers, and they certainly weren't a couple in the modern sense.

Totally agree : )
(Perhaps if more people understood this, we would have books and movies that make more sense about this fascinating relationship.)