pothos.org

Gods! You're a good man Smitty!

I'm actually enjoying dad's day on the front lawn with a red, roasted goat (in the Webber) and Briant's book.

I was far too lazy to transcribe what you have just done.

Bloody marvellous!

Yeah happy father's day mate! The kids gave me their gifts (usual mug and socks) last night. Unfortunately been at work all day and I'll be cactus by the time I get home tonight. Damn working for a living LoL.

Have a good one mate,

cheers!


just gunna pop out of the office for a smoko.

I feel for you mate. Too good an afternoon to be working: 25 degrees, sun and Warren Zevon boomin' from the boat quad speakers.

Homer Paralus: Red - hmmmm; roasted goat - hmmmm; Warren Zevon - hmmmm.

As Paralus says, you are a good man, Smitty. Thank you very much for that section of Briant, which was very interesting.

smittysmitty wrote:I don't know why thoe 'cool faces' appear in the post - couldn't get rid of them. No matter

It's because you inadvertantly created an emoticon at the end of your parentheses. You need to leave a space between the "8" and the closing parenthesis - 8 ) - otherwise you get

ATB

Going backto the topic.

Is this i hope the final cut. Or Like Stalone Rocky 6 and now another Rambo. Looking rediculous. Rocky and rambo Started pretty decent but slipped to down right rediculous.

Please say that this is Alexanders last dip in the noose I cant take any more. Its breaking me up.Im losing sleep with nightmares of Colin Farrel in mascara.

I suggest if theres another one Stone Shouls make a cameo appearance and throw himself under a chariot... Although I feel hed be saved the Horses would line up and cock there legs over him.

Rocky and rambo Started pretty decent but slipped to down right rediculous.

Rocky 4 was great.

Efstathios wrote:

Rocky and rambo Started pretty decent but slipped to down right rediculous.

Rocky 4 was great.

As was "First Blood", the first of the Rambo films. We teach the Vietnam War in my school, and we are more than happy to use parts of "First Blood" to illustrate what it was like for veterans returning to the US. It's a serious film, extremely well made, adapted from a worthy book. But the serious message of "First Blood" was erased when they went for the gung-ho, jingoistic nonsense that was "Rambo: First Blood Part 2" ... and the least said about Part 3 the better.

ATB

Couldnt agree more Marcus. First Blood Rocy 1 and a few other Stallone Movies have been pretty top dollar then as you say he drifted into fantasist gun slinger mode for the masses who like the odds against shoot em up movies.

Im aware Rambos making another appearance. I recently watched Bob Lee Swagger in Shooter and am pretty confident if Rambo actually did pop out in a vest blasting Some Sharp shooter would put one straight betweentheevyes. Its always funny haw particullaly bad shots people like Rambos enemies are.

With the reemergence of Die Hard etc. To me it shows how people must be getting pretty fed up with the Gore and silly Teen comedies spewing out now.

Its time for a more concerted effort with movies Like Lord Of The Rings. Blood Diamond and Bourne which for me is the best movie this year.

kenny

Hello,

Sometime viewer, first time poster here.

Where this version of the movie is concerned, I liked it best simply because of my background as a former art major: my differences with Stone's style aside, I have always respected his eye for the visual, and I believe that the latest cut is superior if for no other reason than because it provides even more visual flair. See, for instance, the additional scenes of Alexander's travelling tent--the props, the costumes, etc.

Now, do I actually like the movie? I don't. I didn't like a single one of the versions. I felt that Stone was given what he had always wanted--the vehicle to bring to life one of the most dominating personalities in all of history--and he created something that was simply mediocre.

karen wrote:Well, here's the thing. Homophobes can prattle on as much as they like about Stone having a "gay agenda," but if you look carefully you can see how he actually steered as close as he could to conservative American mores, ...

We can go on and on about Alexander's sexual life, but, in my humble opinion, Stone made a mistake by centering so much of his film on a part of Alexander's life that utlimately counted for so little. The influence of Hephaistion, Alexander's greatest friend, would have been there regardless of a sexual relationship. Bagoas virtually nil effect on how Alexander conducted life.

Was the purpose of the portrayed relationships to humanize the man? If so, I question how Alexander's sexual conduct was more important than the known, almost concrete episodes that demonstrate to what directions he could move and what extremes he might employ. How is the duality of Alexander the man better understood? By competing scenes of passion with Roxanne and Bagoas? Or by his willingness to sentence tens of thousands to death or slavery on one day and his proclivity to mercy and dignity on another?

Ultimately, I think the problem is that Stone wishes to create provocative works. Alexander's wish to unify the Asian and Hellenic world is not necessarily provocative--to us, in the 21st century. Nor is wearing a Great King's diadem and other parts of his royal outfit as a compromise to the various subjects, or the recruiting and training of tens of thousands of young Persian men to create a basis for a new, unified state*. But wearing eyeliner and exotic clothing? Certainly.

Another example? How does Alexander yelling back and forth with his mother regarding his paternity somehow trump the portrayal of a pilgrimage to Siwah?

And thus my list of complaints goes on. I could care less with whom Alexander slept in the 4th century BCE. I do care, however, when a movie grasps at straws and leaves out the defining moments in lieu of melodramatic acting.

An artist ultimately has to know when his commercial art will polarize the very audience he depends on. Stone knew this basic equation.

- 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?

Read Xenophon, Hellenica, IV.1.38-40

I'm familiar with more convincing evidence of what you propse. I'm not sure what the above reference proves, though. The implied romance is between Pharnabazus' son and the son of Eualces. Am I missing something?

It is difficult to know just what carnage might have been on display prior to Gaugamela. Certainly Alexander will have lost many more than the Macedonian historians care to acknowledge at Issus. Chaeronea will have resulted in more Greek that Macedonian dead - on the poor preservation of it that we have.

All the same... By the time Gaugamela was fought, Alexander had ordered the razing of a city, the enslavement of the unarmed populace of at least two major cities, and the execution of tens of thousands of men.

It is often forgotten that the infantry, led rightwards and forwards by the hypaspist corps staying in reasonable contact with their king, opened a gap towards the left which was rooted to the spot in a struggle to the death. Had the Persian cavalry wheeled to take the phalanx in the rear, we might all be speaking Farsi today. Those that poured through this gap - wide adrenaline-charged eyes only for the baggage train and the Royal personages - failed the Achaemenid king miserably.

As I recall, Fuller contends that Alexander's "hostage" hoplites formed a secondary line of reserves and that it was due to them that the break-through did not turn worse. I'm currently waiting for my library to be shipped to Italy; how many of the extant sources purport that the cavalry in question made it to the camp?

* One cannot understate the role the Macedonian army had at the time in confirming the rule of the monarch. The 30,000 youths Alexander was enrolling were almost a numerical match for the standing infantry forces of all of Macedon. If citizenship through military service became an avenue of empowerment for the Asiatic and African populations of the empire, the socio-political exclusivity enjoyed by the Macedonians would have at worst disappeared or at best been greatly diminished. That Rome rose to power through similar enfranchisement and that the Successor Kingdoms only decayed as time went is no coincidence.

Welcome to the forum, Phoebus, and thanks for your many intelligent insights.

I think sex scenes in a movie like this are pretty much a Hollywood requirement. Rosario Dawson's bouncing breasts and Colin Farrell's boot-camp-ripped torso are going to sell tickets. Period. 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. I just wish he'd elucidated the importance of Hephaistion's influence on Alexander, though -- showed more of the non-sexual dynamics of the relationship, and why it was so strong.

I actually disagree with you in that I think Stone could have made a point of the recruiting/training of the epigonai... some shots of young Persians in Makedonian-style armour, practicing the same sarissa techniques as we saw used earlier in the Gaugamela scene, while one of the old guard guys looks on in horror, saying things like, "These fakes, these impersonators... why is Alexander doing this? How can he think they can be as good as us?" He could really have given us a sense of how some Makedonians felt they were being replaced and hence betrayed, and added some dramatic tension. Oh well.

I disagree with you that Alexander's paternity was not key. I think his doubts about it were absolutely crucial to his personality and his motivations. Fatherhood was a very big deal in his culture, especially in a royal family, because fatherhood and only fatherhood bestowed the divine ancestry and hence the perceived fitness to rule; the only thing that could trump that was being more recently descended from a God. If Alexander internalized Philip's doubts about his paternity, the only way he could think of himself as worthy of the throne was to accept his mother's story, that he was the son of Zeus. And since, in the Homeric mindset, the sons of Gods are distinguished by their deeds, he had a lot of motivation to perform, so as to make his proof. My opinion, anyway.

On another topic, one theory I have about why Stone didn't have Colin Farrell play a stronger, more commanding Alexander is that he thought, 'Everybody knows that -- I don't have to show that side of him because everyone knows it's there.' If so, it was a mistake. I don't know about anyone else, but the way I read a book or watch a movie is by entering its world on its own terms, and part of that is the given that I've never been in that world before and I'm ignorant of everything about it. Thus, instead of bringing my impression of Alexander into the movie, I just tried to see Stone's -- and then, naturally, compared the two. If a lot of other people did the same, it could be at least part of why the movie didn't do better. Any other thoughts on that?

Warmly,
Karen

karen wrote:I actually disagree with you in that I think Stone could have made a point of the recruiting/training of the epigonai... some shots of young Persians in Makedonian-style armour, practicing the same sarissa techniques as we saw used earlier in the Gaugamela scene, while one of the old guard guys looks on in horror, or say things like, "These fakes, these impersonators... why is Alexander doing this? How can he think they can be as good as us?" He could really have given us a sense of how some Makedonians felt they were being replaced and hence betrayed, and added some dramatic tension. Oh well.

I may not have come across 100% clearly... I agree totally with what you stated above, and it was my intention to convey the same thought. I was utterly disappointed that what you just described was not portrayed.

I disagree with you that Alexander's paternity was not key.

I don't claim it wasn't; I simply thought it was sad that Stone focused on unsubtantiated rumor-mongering and rather melodramatic scenes as opposed to the Siwah pilgrimage. The latter did focus with issues of paternity, and it would also further have demonstrated the duality of Alexander--a son questing for answers/a conqueror coming up with a political tool.

'Everybody knows that -- I don't have to show that side of him because everyone knows it's there.' If so, it was a mistake.

Agreed.

If a lot of other people did the same, it could be at least part of why the movie didn't do better. Any other thoughts on that?

Also agreed.

I understand Stone's vision, even if I don't agree with it. Unfortunately, Stone underestimated how ingrained certain aspects of Alexander were in modern culture. His error, I humbly posit, was in trying to make him seem more human against our own modern conceptions of what heroic is (and thus forcing the comparison you mentioned)... when he should have been teaching us that being "great" (and, hence, a conqueror; a butcher at times; a murderer as well) is not necessarily what it's cracked up to be.

Cheers,
P.

Phoebus wrote:

Read Xenophon, Hellenica, IV.1.38-40

I'm familiar with more convincing evidence of what you propse. I'm not sure what the above reference proves, though. The implied romance is between Pharnabazus' son and the son of Eualces. Am I missing something?.

Only that it was written to someone else addressing general homoerotic behaviour. And yes there are better examples - particularly with respect to Agesilaos - but why bother?

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.

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).

Whether he “cried” or not is an artistic irrelevancy. What’s your point?

Phoebus wrote:As I recall, Fuller contends that Alexander's "hostage" hoplites formed a secondary line of reserves and that it was due to them that the break-through did not turn worse. I'm currently waiting for my library to be shipped to Italy; how many of the extant sources purport that the cavalry in question made it to the camp?.

Indeed Alexander did have “hostage” hoplites in a reserve phalanx. To save myself the re-writing, I’ve pasted this from another thread:

The gap should have proved decisive. The rear phalanx had, seemingly, no idea these horsemen had worked their way through the Macedonian lines – most likely due to the dust – until they appear in the baggage. It is only then that they about face and engage them. Had they wheeled left they may well have taken the victorious Macedonian centre-right in the rear and changed the state of play. They did not.

Nor did any other force, apparently, find its way into this gap. The question must be why?

Tyche.

Depending on the source, it is the reserve phalanx or mercenary cavalry (given they were busy on Alexander’s right, the phalanx is my bet) that rescued the situation. For the Persians into the baggage and/or Alexander’s assertion that the winner will reclaim their baggage as well as the take the enemy’s: Polyaenus 4.3.6; Plutarch, Alex. 32.7; Curtius 4.15.7; Arrian 3.14 and Diodorus 17.59.5-8.

Phoebus wrote:Another example? How does Alexander yelling back and forth with his mother regarding his paternity somehow trump the portrayal of a pilgrimage to Siwah?

Perhaps because most viewers wouldn't understand the import of a visit to an oracle to get answers of that nature? Although I too was disappointed that Siwah wasn't included in the film, I can well imagine that it wouldn't have had the force for a "lay" viewer that the argument with Olympias had in the film.

ATB

I've seen the Final Cut twice now, and while I liked it, and appreciated it, I didn't enjoy it as much as the Theatrical version. One of the things about this new version that struck me was the childhood scenes. What was the point of showing the wrestling scene after the scene in the campaign tent before Gaugamela? The whole point of the wrestling scene seemed to be to introduce the viewer to the men involved, and show that they'd been with Alexander all along, but in this version, we meet them first as grown-ups.
And the scene at Mieza, in the new version, only emphasised the annoying 'two Hephaistions' thing. It was bad enough before, when you could see that the child Hephaistion in the wrestling scene wasn't the same boy as was sitting next to Alexander at Mieza. But now, when he has a line, and Aristotle answers him and addresses him by name, and it's not the right child speaking, it looks even stranger. I know why it was forced upon them, but it seems odd to emphasise the problem even more strongly.
Fiona

Fiona wrote:I've seen the Final Cut twice now, and while I liked it, and appreciated it, I didn't enjoy it as much as the Theatrical version. One of the things about this new version that struck me was the childhood scenes. What was the point of showing the wrestling scene after the scene in the campaign tent before Gaugamela? The whole point of the wrestling scene seemed to be to introduce the viewer to the men involved, and show that they'd been with Alexander all along, but in this version, we meet them first as grown-ups.
And the scene at Mieza, in the new version, only emphasised the annoying 'two Hephaistions' thing. It was bad enough before, when you could see that the child Hephaistion in the wrestling scene wasn't the same boy as was sitting next to Alexander at Mieza. But now, when he has a line, and Aristotle answers him and addresses him by name, and it's not the right child speaking, it looks even stranger. I know why it was forced upon them, but it seems odd to emphasise the problem even more strongly.
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.