pothos.org

Hi ! Do you think the movie by Oliver Stone will be good ?
I doubt : For me, to show this incredible story on screen, a director must have a kind of genius, of madness, Stone hasn't got. I think we'll see at worst a really bad, bad film like Troy (what I fear, seing the trailer) , and at best a good "neo-peplum" like Gladiator : beautifull pictures, well acting, that's all.
I would like to see a movie like "Napoleon" by Abel Gance, or "Lawrence of Arabia", but I fear that will be only another Hollywood's big machine...What do you think about that ? (I apologize for my bad english)Ariadne.

Hi Ariadne,No need to apologise for your English - it's fine.I don't expect the film to be 'bad'. I have no doubt that there will be things that I dislike, or disagree with; but overall it will (as you suggest) look good, and will probably be well acted; and I suspect that the bulk of the story will be fine.As far as I'm concerned, so long as there isn't anything in it that is wildly wrong and which could give the wrong impression about Alexander (which is subjective, anyway), then it can only be a good thing ... and boy, I cannot wait to find out!All the bestMarcus

Thanks Marcus ! Of course I'll go and see the movie as soon it'll be on theater here, I can't resist to anything about this story ! But I try to speak on a more artistic point of view. I'm not a professional movie critic, but I like cinema. I think a great man like he was needs a great director to tell his story. I would adore to see not only a good historical movie, but a long, epic film with intelligent thougts, poetry and madness, like the ones I spoke in my first post. When you see them, you know, you've got the feeling that Shakespeare has done it! I'm only dreaming...Ariadne.

Don't know exactly how you define "wildly wrong" but Stone has Cassander present during the battle against Porus, so I presume Cassander is being shown as going on all the campaigns with Alexander. I've surmised this means Stone is going with the poison theory and wanted to increase Cassander's presence in the movie - his character is listed with the starring roles, while even Perdiccas and Craterus are amongst the supporting cast. From a movie director's point of view, I can understand the reasoning behind this. It makes a better story than having a "stranger" turn up at the last minute carrying poison. But it does make me wonder what else has been altered for effect. Still, I'm looking forward to finding out. :-)Linda Ann

Hi Linda ! the most serious historians now don't think Alexander has been poisoned.
i think if Stone shows the poison theory, i'll be only another spectacular movie! I don't want him to make what he did with JFK !For me the great topic in this story seems to be the power, the will of domination and its stupidity, and how this man was extraordinary, so bad and so great in the same time. After so much battles and people trying to assasinate him, he only dies from desease ...the irony of life.

So please, not a scenario on "Who poisoned who and in wich circonstances", and Kevin Costner searching for the guilty ! Maybe I'm a bit to dreamy, and have a to great idea of cinema ...Ariadne

Hello Ariadne:Well, I think most people here will agree with you regarding how they'd like to see Alexander's life portrayed in the film. Unfortunately, it's Stone's movie and not ours, and I can't see any other reason for the presence of Cassander in India unless Stone is going for another conspiracy theory. I even have a sneaking suspicion from some of the things I've read that he might suggest Hephaistion was poisoned as well, though I could well be wrong! It's a movie and not a documentary, and a large percentage of the audience will not know the history of Alexander, so they won't care how it ends as long as the film tells a good story - and there *is* precedent for the poisoning theory, after all. I'm going to see the film with an open mind and without too many expectations of historical accuracy. This way, I won't be disappointed. Then if Stone does follow most of the history, I'll be pleasantly surprised. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

I have absolutely no doubt that, if Cassander is to appear before 324/3, then Stone's going for the poisoning. Fair enough, I says - even though Cassander wasn't there for the whole campaign.It will still be more historically accurate than any of Paul Doherty's 'mysteries' :-)All the bestMarcus

I have absolutely no doubt that, if Cassander is to appear before 324/3, then Stone's going for the poisoning. Fair enough, I says - even though Cassander wasn't there for the whole campaign.It will still be more historically accurate than any of Paul Doherty's 'mysteries' :-)All the bestMarcus

If one reads the article in Premiere magazine, you will read that Oliver Stone LOVES Alexander, so you can be certain that it will be a great spin!

" a large percentage of the audience will not know the history of Alexander, so they won't care how it ends as long as the film tells a good story "Of course ! That's a good reason not to lie about what happens (serious historians now don't think he has been poisoned) !Bye Bye !Ariadne

It's probably better to amend that to "many serious historians ...". Otherwise it might look as if you're saying that, if you believe he was poisoned, you can't be a serious historian ... and I'm sure you don't mean that!All the bestMarcus