pothos.org

Semiramis wrote:
I would expect Roxane, Bagoas and/or Hephaistion to be there in the most popular fiction about Alexander. You drop any middlebrow fiction book on its spine and it'll open on the page with the sex in it. I'm willing to bet that Alexander's Lovers link gets more hits than Alexander's sieges in Pothos. Can Marcus or Amyntoros comment on that? 'Tis the nature of fiction that there will be a love interest (or 3).

I have no numbers to give you, but I've no doubt that Alexander's Lovers gets many hits. Looking around the web one can see that there IS a great interest in Alexander's sexual liaisons, although I don't think that the level of interest is disproportionate within Pothos. After all, this is the forum where people come to discuss ALL aspects of Alexander's life from a historical point of view. Outside of Pothos though … well, I've read very little fan fiction, but judging by the LJ communities I would suspect there's been an overkill on the subject of Alexander's sexuality (although the whole genre seems to be fading somewhat of late, at least where Alexander is concerned). I do agree with you that most would expect a love interest in a work of fiction, but each individual will likely have preferences as to how it is handled. I, for instance, can not tolerate Manfredi's "rutting" Alexander.

Best regards,

I managed to catch a glimpse of the scene in which Kleitus and Alexander get into an argument and Alexander loses his temper, and it made me think...this much time later, I had completely forgotten that scene until I caught in channel surfing. It does show that somebody in the USA remembered that supposedly the July 20 is supposed to be a birthday quoted for Alexander. Not that that is the actual date of his real birth, but it is in sync with the NASA project.

As for the film, it is typical Oliver Stone, so if a fan of Stone, you may find it appealing. If not, another good reason to think that Stone is forever stoned.

There is no doubt that like Steven Pressfield who admitted in his book on Alexander that he deliberately transposes events with one another, it was interesting to see Roxanne warning Alexander how hated he is just before he kills Kleitus. In reality, he killed Kleitos before he even met Roxanne.

Typical Stone version of historical facts.


Hey! It is only a piece of celluloid!

Semiramis wrote:I'm terrible at expressing myself. I did not state that all movies need to generate sympathy towards the main character. I stated that Stone's movie was obviously geared to have a sympathetic main character

I caught that, hence my "quick add".

It's obvious that you disagree with the entire take on Alexander in this movie.

Yes, you are correct.

I doubt small changes like including something and excluding something else would change the movie enough to make Alexander into the "rough and tough" character many people wanted. I don't agree that only an "brutal and hard" conqueror can entertain or a more "historically accurate" one.

Well... I don't want a "rought and tough" Alexander. Nor do I want to see only the "brutal and hard" conqueror. What I wanted was a movie that took an honest look at his character as a whole.

It's a feature film. Is that not by its very definition fiction? :S

I think you just nailed our fundamental difference of opinions right there.

My point is, you might find that once the audience has seen a graphic scene showing something like the aftermaths of the siege of Tyre (just to take one example), they're not going to care if Alexander can recite Greek plays or cries for his friends. None of that can "balance" him out into a nuanced character.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

So, if you're talking about how killing, slavery, crucifixions etc after siege of Tyre can be filmed in order to make the audience accept, excuse or even sympathize with Alexander, aren't you basically talking about achieving this end by making sure there is no full disclosure?

No, I don't think so. There's a huge difference between the ommission of something and one's choice in how to portray it. The important thing is that the act itself is accounted for and thus the character's full story is told. How that act is shown is up to the director. Fredo Corleone's murder is shown from a distance; the act of being shot in the head is likely to involve fragments of the skull and brain matter being jetissoned, but Coppola chose to not involve us in that part of the act. Nonetheless, you know that Michael is capable of having his own sibling murdered. In "Troy", Achilles is shown dragging Hector for a few instants, but it's Priam's grief that's used as the vehicle for for conveying the magnitude of this act to us.

Critics having no issue with a non-blockbuster film portraying "macho" yet "homosexual" men is quite different from the intended audience for a blockbuster "action" film having issues with it.

Eh, either way, Stone knew his audience and would have to be liar if he claimed he didn't know the likely reaction of a North American audience.

I wouldn't dare to disagree with what you said about either taste or fiction; and I appreciate your kind closing words. I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the debate on movies glorifying war, though. "300" raised precisely that kind of debate, but I think Alexander can only be accused of such precisely because it occupies such an uncomfortable middle ground.

Thanks again for the thoughts and points!

P.

Phoebus wrote:[No, I don't think so. There's a huge difference between the ommission of something and one's choice in how to portray it. The important thing is that the act itself is accounted for and thus the character's full story is told. How that act is shown is up to the director.

Hi Phoebus.

Pardon butting in but, while I take the point that there's a choice in how to portray matters (your Corleone example), it is a different thing when you choose not to portray some. There are reasons and some probably beyond simple time / budget constraints.

For instance, it would be art at crossed purposes to have Alexander recite that really rather silly soliloquy at Hephaestion’s death bed were it preceded by Alexander’s enslaving of eastern populations to the garrison towns of empire (synoecisms). Might have made that lofty rubbish look as hollow as it was.

I’d argue that a voice over which mentioned these things (some only) does not portray them. Stone managed two epic and glorious battles – conflations of actions aside. The dark side of this conqueror was relegated, in large part, to voice over. We see valiant Indians battle hard under the brave Porus. We do not see the ringed Indian infantry cut to pieces in a post battle slaughter. Nor do we see the annihilation of a people: the Mallians. Then again, perhaps I should go back and look at it again – it’s been a while as it was such a disappointment.

Phoebus wrote: I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the debate on movies glorifying war, though. "300" raised precisely that kind of debate...

That and more. That was about the poorest film I’ve paid money to see. May as well have watched my son playing computer games. I believe I laughed out loud once or twice. Certainly at the orcs that were apparently ephors.

Anyhow, back to the babi pong teh (stewed pork with taucheo – preserved soy beans) simmering on the stove, Paralus and the clan are hungry.

Katerina wrote: I believe Hephaistion knew exactly where he stood with Alexander.

Exactly!

Paralus wrote:Certainly at the orcs that were apparently ephors.

LMFAO!!