Celebrating Alexander's Birthday

[Phoebus]

Yeah, I'll have to agree with that one. I liked the depiction of Gaugamela because it gave you an indication of the "hook to the guts" Alexander attempted.

Hydaspes deserved that kind of attention to detail because here again Alexander shows his tactical cunning--a feint, followed by an attack in force against Porus' cavalry--but this time his attack does not finish the battle. Instead, we are told his cavalry eventually have to gather into a kind of super-squadron for the remainder of the battle. Little details like that bring the drama to my mind's eye.

Stone certainly conveyed the desperation and chaos of Hydaspes... but, excellent sense of chaos and fog of war aside, I didn't feel like the depiction of the battle did it as much justice as the earlier one, for Gaugamela.

[Paralus]

Stone certainly conveyed the desperation and chaos of Hydaspes... but, excellent sense of chaos and fog of war aside, I didn't feel like the depiction of the battle did it as much justice as the earlier one, for Gaugamela.

Except that there was no tropical forest – the battle being fought on a riverine plain – and, as for “Granissumela”, leave me out. That the fall of the Achaemenids was reduced to a single battle is the greatest conceit of the film - well, aside from that stupid soliloquy whilst Heph died. The idea being to show the “genius” of Alexander as commander against the hordes of the east.

The trapping of the chariots I can abide. The riding – at headlong pace – by Alexander to Babylon before straightening his attack I cannot see. That his hypaspists – on foot – followed is nonsense. This was a measured advance forward and right – no gallop.

Yes there was consternation and fear amongst the Macedonians at Hydaspes: elephants will do that. In the end though the Indians were butchered by the cavalry, hypaspists and that infantry which joined in the surrounding of them.

[marcus]

I don't think it was coincidence, the way the horse and the elephant were scripted to rear up facing each other.

Interesting to read what Justin had to say about the Hydaspes:

[3]When battle was joined, Porus ordered his troops to attack the Macedonians but insisted on having the king for himself as his own personal enemy. [4] Alexander did not hang back from the fight; but at the first clash his horse was wounded and the king was thrown to the ground, to be saved only when attendants rushed to his aid.

So it was clever of Stone, as he was going to conflate the Hydaspes with Alexander's wound at the Mallian town, to use this report from Justin to set up the climactic moment!

ATB

[Katerina]

Hi, I'm New. I'm happy to see others celebrating Alexander's Birthday. I live in the USA, and no mention of it here ( at least in my areas ), I must say, very disappointing.

My favirite version of Alexander's movie was the Final Cut. But I might have to re-watch them to be sure ! I did not really like the theatrical cut much.

I agree with Fiona on her assesment of the film. I am happy they tried to show the man, and not so much the battles., but I suppose that's why the film didn't do as well in USA. I think people wanted more of a TROY styled movie. I am happy he portrayed the man, Alexander as he did, but I must say there were some weird scenes that I could not imagine Alexander in some of those ways , nor do I believe it would be that way : for example one would be: the bed scene with Roxana, and the weird hissing sound Stone has Alexander making. Other then these few weird scenes, I think the film was prertty good.

[athenas owl]

Stone certainly conveyed the desperation and chaos of Hydaspes... but, excellent sense of chaos and fog of war aside, I didn't feel like the depiction of the battle did it as much justice as the earlier one, for Gaugamela.

Except that there was no tropical forest – the battle being fought on a riverine plain – and, as for “Granissumela”, leave me out. That the fall of the Achaemenids was reduced to a single battle is the greatest conceit of the film - well, aside from that stupid soliloquy whilst Heph died. The idea being to show the “genius” of Alexander as commander against the hordes of the east.

The trapping of the chariots I can abide. The riding – at headlong pace – by Alexander to Babylon before straightening his attack I cannot see. That his hypaspists – on foot – followed is nonsense. This was a measured advance forward and right – no gallop.

Yes there was consternation and fear amongst the Macedonians at Hydaspes: elephants will do that. In the end though the Indians were butchered by the cavalry, hypaspists and that infantry which joined in the surrounding of them.

Paralus, what you call "conceit" is called "lack of budget and time" in Hollywood. He didn't imply that there was only one battle, but that Gaugamela was the high point of ATG's life. After that, things began to fall apart. He threw in Cleitus saving ATG's life because it was a great story and set up the tragedy of ATG then murdering him years later. It took a minute for me to get the galloping to Babylon thing. Again, it was a film, and if ATG had been sauntering away from the center it wouldn't have had the visual impact.

And the combined battle in India, it actually showed just how different and "unhappy" it was was for ATG than Gaugamela had been. The "jungle" setting was to make the point that India was a very different place (even the camera filters were different, more grainy, diffused or something).. And did you miss the part in Ptolemy's narration where he mentions the savage butchery on the part of the Macedonians?


Hephaistion's death scene...quite schmaltzy, yeah (though, to be frank, I do think that Alexander was quite a schmaltzy guy. Subtle he was not...remember at the sack of Thebes the painting he took, Aristeides' painting of a dying mother and child, very emotional supposedly). Though in Revisited, Stone took out Hephaistion's death twitch as ATG self-centeredly talked about what HE wanted. I do think that what Alexander said was what he might have actually hoped for. Though, here again, rightly or wrongly, because the sources say that ATG wasn't there when H. died, perhaps his choice was to have ATG's back turned away and still get the speech in. Oh that's another budget cut..Hephaistion's Pyre..they couldn't afford it.

[Fiona]

I haven't read RLF's "Making of Alexander". If it comes with pictures of Jared Leto, I'm in! FIFTEEN years in the making!?!?! I can believe it thought... The Ishtar Gate has been reconstructed in the Berlin Museum and it seems Stone paid attention. I saw a small part of the real thing in the Louvre a while ago. Was it reported that it was raining the day Alexander died? As for the missing scenes, with Genghis Khan, they're actually making a trilogy of films. I think that makes more sense if you're trying to cover a larger than life character, but I know so few people who liked the movie as is...

I think you would love this book. I don't know if it's still in print - probably not - but copies sometimes come up for sale on ebay. As well as masses of interesting background information, there are loads of great pictures, including some I've never seen anywhere else. Four are of Jared as Hephaistion - one at the theatre, in chiton and chlamys, the one in scale armour, one of the 'No, he doesn't' moment with Roxane, and one in the campaign tent which is the best picture I've ever seen of Jared as Hephaistion, it's breathtaking.
I wish they'd made a trilogy to start with, but I think they've used pretty much all they had now, in 'Revisited'.
And yes, it is known that it was raining the day Alexander died. I'm afraid I don't know the name of the source, but I believe it is a Babylonian court record.
Fiona

[Fiona]

2. The siege of Tyre (can you imagine the shots of the city's tall walls and the amazing siege works used to get over them?)

Oh yes, that would have been awesome. I keep thinking that the siege of Tyre could easily be a whole film in its own right. I just wish we knew more about the defenders. Alexander was up against some good opposition there - don't you get the feeling that there was someone good in there, a man who thought like Alexander did and organised such effective counter-measures, again and again?
Fiona

[Fiona]

Interesting to read what Justin had to say about the Hydaspes:

[3]When battle was joined, Porus ordered his troops to attack the Macedonians but insisted on having the king for himself as his own personal enemy. [4] Alexander did not hang back from the fight; but at the first clash his horse was wounded and the king was thrown to the ground, to be saved only when attendants rushed to his aid.

So it was clever of Stone, as he was going to conflate the Hydaspes with Alexander's wound at the Mallian town, to use this report from Justin to set up the climactic moment!

ATB

Very clever indeed - thanks, Marcus, hadn't seen this quotation, it's a good one.
Fiona

[Fiona]

Hi, I'm New. I'm happy to see others celebrating Alexander's Birthday. I live in the USA, and no mention of it here ( at least in my areas ), I must say, very disappointing.

My favirite version of Alexander's movie was the Final Cut. But I might have to re-watch them to be sure ! I did not really like the theatrical cut much.

I agree with Fiona on her assesment of the film. I am happy they tried to show the man, and not so much the battles., but I suppose that's why the film didn't do as well in USA. I think people wanted more of a TROY styled movie. I am happy he portrayed the man, Alexander as he did, but I must say there were some weird scenes that I could not imagine Alexander in some of those ways , nor do I believe it would be that way : for example one would be: the bed scene with Roxana, and the weird hissing sound Stone has Alexander making. Other then these few weird scenes, I think the film was prertty good.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Katerina. I guess each version had its good points, and the Final Cut (Revisited) certainly had a lot of new footage in it. I thought myself that the non-linear structure in that one was taking non-linear a bit too far, but I guess OS was going for broke at that point. At least it puts the scenes around Alexander's wedding in the right order, so you don't get Hephaistion going around with a split lip he isn't supposed to have got yet. It went a bit too Mary Renault at the end, I thought - the Final Cut only, I mean, not the earlier ones - I think she should have been credited.
I've never met anyone who likes the wedding night scene with Roxane, and adding Bagoas doesn't help. The bit before, though, with the ring, is an entirely different matter...

Fiona

[Semiramis]

Yeah, I'll have to agree with that one. I liked the depiction of Gaugamela because it gave you an indication of the "hook to the guts" Alexander attempted.

Hydaspes deserved that kind of attention to detail because here again Alexander shows his tactical cunning--a feint, followed by an attack in force against Porus' cavalry--but this time his attack does not finish the battle. Instead, we are told his cavalry eventually have to gather into a kind of super-squadron for the remainder of the battle. Little details like that bring the drama to my mind's eye.

Stone certainly conveyed the desperation and chaos of Hydaspes... but, excellent sense of chaos and fog of war aside, I didn't feel like the depiction of the battle did it as much justice as the earlier one, for Gaugamela.

Hy Phoebus,

I like how they put in Cleitus' saving Alexander from Granicus into the Gaugamela battle. I thought I saw the wedge formation of the cavalry across the field... But the Persians were just standing around willy nilly instead of their units... It made them look easy to bowl over... Which almost takes away from the suspense.

The one against Porus - I don't know if choosing a jungle really helped to get a feel that there was any tactic involved in the battle. I agree that he brought out the chaos and desperation very well, especially with the elephants and arrows... Stone is a Vietnam veteran and I wonder if that's part of the reason why he can make us connect to the "fog of war" scenes?

[Semiramis]

2. The siege of Tyre (can you imagine the shots of the city's tall walls and the amazing siege works used to get over them?)

Oh yes, that would have been awesome. I keep thinking that the siege of Tyre could easily be a whole film in its own right. I just wish we knew more about the defenders. Alexander was up against some good opposition there - don't you get the feeling that there was someone good in there, a man who thought like Alexander did and organised such effective counter-measures, again and again?
Fiona

Guys,

How could Stone show the siege of Tyre without showing the aftermath? Young ones taking refuge in the temples, 6,000 fighting men dead, 2,000 crucified, 35,000 sold to slavery. Only survivors sneaked out by Alexander's new allies in the region. I can imagine a shot of crucified Tyrians along the beach as far as the eye can see. But... do you think the audience would have any sympathy for the main character after this? I think Ptolemy makes a passing apologetic mention of Thebes... Can't recall if Tyre or Gaza was included in the narration. Time to watch the Final Cut again methinks...

[Semiramis]

Stone certainly conveyed the desperation and chaos of Hydaspes... but, excellent sense of chaos and fog of war aside, I didn't feel like the depiction of the battle did it as much justice as the earlier one, for Gaugamela.

Except that there was no tropical forest – the battle being fought on a riverine plain – and, as for “Granissumela”, leave me out. That the fall of the Achaemenids was reduced to a single battle is the greatest conceit of the film - well, aside from that stupid soliloquy whilst Heph died. The idea being to show the “genius” of Alexander as commander against the hordes of the east.

The trapping of the chariots I can abide. The riding – at headlong pace – by Alexander to Babylon before straightening his attack I cannot see. That his hypaspists – on foot – followed is nonsense. This was a measured advance forward and right – no gallop.

Yes there was consternation and fear amongst the Macedonians at Hydaspes: elephants will do that. In the end though the Indians were butchered by the cavalry, hypaspists and that infantry which joined in the surrounding of them.

Hi Paralus,

I think Ptolemy points at a map and mentions Alexander's other battles and "peaceful" take overs that happened before the Gaugamela battle. Issus was marked clearly with a gold bob thingy. Persian empire itself is introduced as the "greatest the world had ever seen". Babylon is introduced as the "capital". I guess four capitals is a bit much to handle and we don't want to mention Persepolis anyway.

I don't know if a movie can do a lot more than that to give the image of a strong empire that existed before Alexander. Even history books can give the idea that Alexander created his empire by barely mentioning the organizational complexities of the Persian empire before launching into Alexander's story. The way I see it, he was mostly taking over a pre-existing system of rule.There's not much to suggest he was interested in changing the "boring" aspects like taxation etc. anyway.

This is probably partly why we still have the idea that Alexander was "magnanimous" or "generous" in reinstating the Persian satraps or allowing them to co-rule with Maceonians. Or that he was particularly "open-minded" in wanting to please the Persian nobles by "Persianizing". I would venture that this was the most intelligent and practical decision on Alexander's part, and emotions did not have to come into play.

The organization of the Achaemenid empire would have been totally mind-boggling to any outsider. It took literally centuries to create this most elaborate network of satrapies, taxes, tributes, royal roads, treasuries, postal services, secret service, down to the four translators the Great King might need to communicate with some of his subjects. Not to mention that any attempts to legitimize a claim to the throne in the eyes of nobles or common people would have to follow Achaemenid protocol. If many books and documentaries aren't doing the job, how much can we expect a Hollywood movie to do? One might be forgiven for assuming that the Achemenids were easy to knock over and Alexander was being very nice in letting some of these Persians hang around.

[Phoebus]

I guess the question needs to be asked: is a movie's job to make you feel sympathetic toward the protagonist; or to entertain?

I would argue that Oliver Stone offered his Alexander (as some have mentioned) without the worry of whether this character would entertain the North American audience that, arguments of equity aside, was his core target audience. Could he have also shown the hard, brutal Alexander without compromising the integrity of the film? I think so. That's why I'm not sympathetic toward Stone's offering--it's incomplete and even unfair in a way to the man's legacy.

[Semiramis]

I'm not sure anyone has claimed that a movie's job is to make the audience feel sympathetic towards the protagonist. We've been discussing Stone's movie in this thread. His Alexander was obviously meant to be a sympathetic character. My point was that, if the siege of Tyre was included in the storyline, the brutality that followed would have to be included too and this did not fit into the slant of this particular movie.

If another movie came out showing the "hard, brutal" Alexander, it would simply go in the opposite direction to sympathy. I'm pretty sure the North American audience would come out of the theater with some strong negative emotions about that Alexander character after any scenes of, say, mass crucifixions.

Either way, no entertaining movie about Alexander would aim to leave the audience apathetic. But, I'm inclined to agree with you that the "hard, brutal" Alexander would be more fair to the man's legacy.

[Phoebus]

I'm not sure anyone has claimed that a movie's job is to make the audience feel sympathetic towards the protagonist.

Well...

But... do you think the audience would have any sympathy for the main character after this?

His Alexander was obviously meant to be a sympathetic character. My point was that, if the siege of Tyre was included in the storyline, the brutality that followed would have to be included too and this did not fit into the slant of this particular movie.

Right, and while I respect and understand the point of different people viewing Alexander differently, largely as a result of the often-contradictory extant record (or lack thereof), I believe that "Stone's" Alexander is an incomplete one. When you make a character sympathetic through omission, that's less an interpretation and more of a re-invention.

If another movie came out showing the "hard, brutal" Alexander, it would simply go in the opposite direction to sympathy.

It would be similarly lacking, in my humble opinion. Personally, I simply don't see that it would be difficult to show both facets of the man. Many of my friends have tried to argue that portraying such a complex man--ruthless but cultured, murderous but loving--isn't feasible, but I steadfastly disagree. Michael Corleone, to me, stands as prime example of a villainous protagonist who ruthlessly murders, orders the execution of his brother, brings pain to his family and is central to the corruption and downfall of his immediate society--but nonetheless captivates the audience to a degree that, I believe, he is viewed as a sympathetic character.

I'm pretty sure the North American audience would come out of the theater with some strong negative emotions about that Alexander character after any scenes of, say, mass crucifixions.

I would offer that ticket sales indicate that same North American audience came out of the theatre with some strong negative emotion about an Alexander character who didn't resemble the conqueror they were expecting enough.

Anywho, that's just me offering opinions. I promise, I'm not trying to be contrary just for the sake of it! Thanks for sharing your opinions!