Vaguely interesting article on the film

[me]

The Guardian ran an article recently on why Alexander bombed in America - not sure if I agree, but here it is:http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... .htmlLinda

[marcus]

That's very interesting - thank you. I don't read the Guardian, so it's useful to have the occasional article pointed out.I'm also in two minds as to whether or not to agree - but at least the writer appears to know his onions as far as things like the sexuality issue is concerned. I do think that it's a reasonable hypothesis as to why the film hasn't done too well in the US. Not necessarily correct (too subtle, for a start), but a good hypothesis all the same :-)All the bestMarcus

[me]

Marcus said:
"I'm also in two minds as to whether or not to agree - but at least the writer appears to know his onions as far as things like the sexuality issue is concerned."Ah - well, I didn't point it out, but the one thing I certainly disagreed with was that statement. You see I can't accept that sexuality is solely a social construct, not when there are genetic markers.. But people trot that opinion out, time after time. People who should know better, who only read what is currently taught by classicists who have no knowledge of sexuality, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness. But it is still a hot debate - I recently watched an online conference on gender with several sociologists, medical researchers etc, and the split was there - the sociologists were right into the social construct (for gender as well as sexuality) and the researcher was much more into hormones/genetic determining gender and sexuality. It was interesting to watch as it mirrored discussions here.The Guardian has run a few articles on Alexander recently. Search those archives.Linda

[neneh]

That was interesting, thanks for posting it. The local paper here ran a story the other day on how the film "had to be" political as Stone's other films have been. The article reads "Whereas Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' was critizised in Europe for ignoring important events in Alexander's life, it failed in the US because it was full of geopolitical and personal problems /.../" (my translation). It also goes on to discuss whether the whole issue concerning the possible political aspects overshadows the real qualities of the film. Uhm, well, anyway, it was an interesting article, and I'm glad too see that it's getting some press concerning other things than his sexuality and Angelina Jolie's accent (which, btw, was the only accent that really really bugged me throughout the film). All the best,Neneh (who couldn't be bothered to log in, sorry).

[marcus]

Hi Linda,Ah, slightly different take on the sexuality thing, probably due to the fact that I didn't read the article carefully enough, or slowly enough. I don't disagree with your disagreement ... where I felt he was right was in his comment about the difference in the way it all 'worked' (for want of a better word).All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

I've now read it again, and while I agree with your disagreement about sexuality being a social construct, I don't agree that that's what he was saying. To quote: "The film's clear-eyed portrayal of Greek same-sexuality is also clearly an American problem. The original practice didn't conform to that late 20th-century sexual construct - gay - with its quaintly dualistic conventions of in or out, top or bottom, feminine or masculine, oral or anal. But then neither was it just intense friendships between muscle-bound jocks. This film gets us as close to the original as we can get."I don't believe he's denying the 'genetic' side of things; but at the same time the social attitudes, acceptance or whatever *were* different from those '20th century constructs', which were surely born partly out of the way in which homosexuality was forced underground through legislation and social odium, and partly out of the way in which people express(ed) themselves once it became socially acceptable, legal, and so on, within the social conditions of the time.I hope this is making sense - one's sexuality is, I am sure, as much to do with genetics as anything else; but societal attitudes are dictated by the social and legal environment, and by the way people express their sexuality.All the bestMarcus

[me]

Hi MarcusActually, I think what he is saying is slightly obscure and more interesting than when I first read it - for example, I thought the Athenians did have the equivalent of "top/bottom" in erastes/eromenos - although albeit a slightly more refined definition of roles, taking in social position etc. But I think maybe that his definition of modern sexuality (as expressed in his dualism analysis) that is baffling me, not ancient ones, which he appears to be seeing in a rounded way. Hmm.I agree with your post, Marcus!Hey! It's Christmas!Linda

[amyntoros]

Is there any chance of you copying and pasting this article and sending it to me by email? When I clicked on the link this morning - poof! - my computer screen went blank and I had to reboot. This is the second time it has done this with a Guardian link - the first time was months ago and was also in a Pothos post. I have absolutely no idea why this happens, and obviously only happens to me! Still, I'd like to read the article and know in more detail what you are all talking about.Pretty please?

[me]

Alexander was, after all, defeatedOliver Stone's tale of imperial hubris in the Middle East is too close to the bone for American tastesHywel Williams
Friday December 10, 2004
The GuardianFor more than 2,300 years Alexander the Great has been the conquerors' conqueror, the one who sets the standard for all the others. Julius Caesar once burst into tears at the contrast between the Macedonian's achievement and his own record. The rage to emulate ensured that Caesar's invading force of Britain included an elephant - the animal first encountered by Alexander on his Indian expedition, which he then deployed in his own army and became ever after a symbol of imperial pomp.This mixture of youthful ardour and Homeric warrior values has been as powerful a legacy in art as it has been in politics and war. Louis XIV, another short conqueror, took the role of Alexander in a ballet performed at court and it was Marlowe's Tamburlaine who sighed: "Is it not passing brave to be a king,/ And ride in triumph through Persepolis?"The looting and the burning of their empire's ceremonial centre was the revenge inflicted on the Persians by Alexander on account of their earlier invasion of Greece. The culmination of over a century's nurture of grievance, the retaliation showed Alexander's care for the Hellenic traditions by which he lived his life.His legacy has been a solvent of the tame conventions of peace and the dullness of decency - an inspiration to those who wish to act out the Achillean pursuit of fame and honour and then thrill at the idea of dying young, because nothing quite beats the sight of a beautiful dead male.The mental journey from the age of Dionysus and Patroclus to that of Jimmy Dean and River Phoenix is almost as far as the geographical one Alexander took from Europe deep into Asia. But there are helpful continuities to encourage self-identification. The gay male warrior joshing with his mates rocks the boat of a certain kind of sentimental Hellenist. And the strutting liberal imperialist can also look back and enjoy the Macedonian thrust. For wasn't Alexander the one who showed the way? He took the Greeks out of the Mediterranean, and in his colonies he created compliant local elites who upheld the benefits of a superior, imposed, culture.
Advertiser links
Swim Free with a Goldfish Credit Card0% interest on balance transfers, fixed for the first six...
goldfishcreditcards.com
Compare 0% Credit Cards - Apply NowPay

[me]

[Apologies for credit card advert in the middle]{Continued...) Oliver Stone's bio-epic of a movie arrives in Britain next month with a cultural baggage almost as heavy as the plunder that trailed in the wake of Alexander's armies. Stupefyingly accurate reconstructions of costume and jewellery, interior furnishings and cavalry charges crowd in on the eye. Babylon looks quite as vulgarly opulent as it probably did in reality. Asiatic dancers gyrate their hips according to that calculated degree of decadent sensuality attributed by 4th-century Greeks to the Orient - a place whose luxuriance threatened the Greek ideal of self-sufficiency. Persian beards are trimmed and oiled with pedantic exactitude. All of which, however, has not saved Stone's Alexander from a critical slaughter in the US.Attention to detail can turn into just too much information. Derek Jarman only needed a few candles, some clever lenses and some gorgeous brocades to recreate Renaissance Rome in his Caravaggio. But like many an Alexander-lover, Stone prostrates himself before his god, overwhelmed by an anorak-like need to record everything there is to know. And in that confusion of events and detail some of the drama of Alexander's coiled spring is lost. Some of the acting is pretty grand-guignol, too. When Olympias, Alexander's snake-worshipping mother, relaxes with a few serpents draped around her thighs after dinner the effect is more comic than sinister, Anthony Hopkins as the aged narrator Ptolemy is every dead-beat classics teacher rather than a driver of the epic tale. Colin Farrell's much commented-on highlights look pretty enough but doing the eye-brows as well was a mistake. While Jared Leto as Alexander's lover Hephaistion - although a ravishingly pectoral presence - hardly needed quite so much eye-liner before going into battle.Despite all of this, it is the extremity of the reaction to a flawed masterpiece that needs explaining. Snobbery about the Irish and northern accents of the Macedonian warriors has played its part. But Stone's point is a good one. These were the cultural outriders from the north who spoke a differently accented Greek from the city states of the south. The film's clear-eyed portrayal of Greek same-sexuality is also clearly an American problem. The original practice didn't conform to that late 20th-century sexual construct - gay - with its quaintly dualistic conventions of in or out, top or bottom, feminine or masculine, oral or anal. But th

[me]

But then neither was it just intense friendships between muscle-bound jocks. This film gets us as close to the original as we can get.But the deepest reason for the outrage it has excited is that film is just too explicit about expansionist war. Alexander was, after all, in the end defeated by the rains of India, the heat of Middle Eastern deserts, by his sullen and mutinous troops. This is a film about imperial over-stretch. At its end Stone, for all his enthused worship, shows us a ruler who is half-psychotic - deranged by dreams of destiny that out-strip his capacity. In the age of Rumsfeld and Bush that is a brave and accurate call.taliesin.hywel@virgin.netApologies - I don't have your email, Linda ann, and I don't have my login.A quote from The Independent on Sunday on biopics by the director (Pete and Dud film)"It's very difficult when you're doing a life story," says Johnson. "A life is a bit like a Loch Ness monster. It has a lot of arcs. And to dramatise a life, inevitably you only see one or two loops of the monster." Better, perhaps, to anatomise one or two loops, as Johnson does, rather than wrestle with the whole serpent."I like that - wrestle the whole serpent..Linda

[Nax]

What a load of twaddle- the movie failed because it was put together slip-shod & piss poor. My friends couldn't tell people apart & didn't know why they were even in the story except as background filler. H**l, it was hard to follow what was happening if you weren't a Big A fan or history buffI don't give a s**t about accents, Irish or otherwise, hair, or whatever. I wasn't bothered by the imperialist overtones- Alexander DID want to conquer & have fun- & hey! I even noticed how stereotyped it was- & a h**l of a lot of Americans think Bush & Co policies are dangerous domestic AND foreign -what bothered a lot of us was the BAD storytelling, BAD dialog, BAD editing, BAD moviemaking. Sorry- yeah, it was about the Big A- but this movie was a muddle compared to LOTR & others. At least the audience could identify a multitude of characters & saw each as individuals. Yeah, yeah, LOTR had more hours- but even in the first movie, these characters were well-defined. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear, you can't make a good movie out of bad. & I WANTED to like it & let's see- "liberal" imperialists? Uh- what happened to right-wing imperialism? "our way or the highway"? Oh yeah, that's right- we don't attack conservatives anymore cuz they won & everyone's on the "liberal is a bad word" bandwagon. It ain't liberals trying to impose "democracy" everywhere Get over it- the movie stinks as a MOVIE

[calesstheness]

*sigh... never will another Lawrence of Arabia movie be made again.
And finally, we now know what killed Alexander.
He was murdered by Oliver Stone!Cheers!!!
::D

[marcus]

Hi Nax,"Get over it- the movie stinks as a MOVIE."The "Get over it" bit is somewhat harsh. Please remember that this was an article written in a newspaper, not the views of this forum."The movie stinks as a movie" might or might not be harsh. Unfortunately, there are a number of people here who have not yet had the opportunity to see the film - what you say might well be true, but we have no chance to agree or disagree. It does seem that your criticisms are those echoed by most other people, so at least we're forewarned and forearmed.All the bestMarcus

[Halil]

Hello MarcusI think Nax is still reeling from the disappointment of seeing what a mess Stone made of the whole thing. Also I think the Guardian article is somewhat insulting to the majority of Americans (over 53% apparently) who don't agree with the present US administration and who did not vote for it. A bad movie is a bad movie is a bad movie...with this one, you don't need to look for a political reason for not liking it. It seems with this one all you have to have is a love and respect for Alexander's world and an interest in seeing it portrayed well. See Peter Green and Borza's comments about its historical accuracy etc. Apparently too, it didn't come across as an anti-Mid.East war movie but as one that gave it a certain validation. BTW, I agree about "The Man Who Would Be King" - darned near perfect. On the Connery track, I just saw "Time Bandits" again and couldn't help comparing the excellence of the Ancient World part against the "Alexander" movie. I don't know what the budget was on the "Bandits" film, but I bet it wasn't $150,000,000.CheersHalil