Re: The Flick

[Linda]

continued.. (sorry about the duplication in the first paragraph)Other familiar incidents were handled badly and out of context - the Bagoas kiss - came at the end of a campaign and a win in a dance comeptiton not as just a titilation, Roxanne - the reasons for marriage were the wrong way around. But you know all this.It was all family drama - and Dynasty rather than Dallas (without the camp - it wasn't camp - it was clumsy). What most surprised me was how non-political this film was (Dallas at least had the fights over oil wells). And that surprises me about Stone. No political sensibility.The battles - dreadful - who won? Alexander was in tears at the end of both, (or dying) and we got nothing of the glory of being a victor. I had no idea of the odds the MAcedonains were up against, or the discipline required from their army. How far did Alexander ride at Guagemela - he was thundering along for hours - he must have been at Bablyon by the end of it. I thought armies lined up not too far from each other. He was unbelievably unprotected by his bodyguard, even though they must have had a job keeping up with him. The tosh about brotherhood of man - incredibly insulting in a film in which no no Western actors got a proper speaking role. The Persian and Indians were mute. The accents - well, if we had seen the Macedonian celts in juxtoposition to the posh English Athenians, it might have made sense. The sets - well, I thought they were awful as well - Pyolomy was based in some up-market garden centre, and the palaces were like theme hotels - Caesar's palace. Not nice to look at - cheap and nasty. Statues - didn't look real. Babylon - I kept thinking of Camelot, Camelot, Camelot - (it's only a model).What did I like? Well, the costumes were good. The fabrics and jewellery were lovely. Colin's see through number is exactly the same as a chiffon jump suit my Sindy doll had (and her hair went like that when you put her in the bath..) but otherwise, very nice. Occasional good bits - the discussion over the marriage to Roxanne was believable, although, as I mentioned before I thought it was generally accepted that Alexander played the "but I love her" card to overcome Macedonian dissent (although he probably did have love for her). But it played ok. Occasional voice overs from Ptolomy as the army moved on, I thought I was in a real film for a bit, and then something clunked (did Ptolomy say in Bactria that this was where Europe met Asia..)?

[Linda]

Cont...Occasional good bits - the discussion over the marriage to Roxanne was believable, although, as I mentioned before I thought it was generally accepted that Alexander played the "but I love her" card to overcome Macedonian dissent (although he probably did have love for her). But it played ok. Occasional voice overs from Ptolomy as the army moved on, I thought I was in a real film for a bit, and then something clunked (did Ptolomy say in Bactria that this was where Europe met Asia..)?It was a first draft - there are hundreds of fan fics on the Internet (and occasionally in print) that have scripts like that - "I am nothing without you, Hephaestion, No, I am nothing with out you, we will be as Achilles and Patroclus were, a love pure and like ancients Greeks have, and I will unite all mankind as you and I will be united, oh and that's why I shag Bagoas and Roxanne, but you and I are like Achilles and Patroclus ...bla bla.." At least the fan fics have the grace to get to the sex bit fairly quickly. And that reminds me, final rant, why did Aristotle hold classes in a ruined temple - I know there are ancient Minoan ruins in Greece, but wouldn't they have chosen a proper house or garden - shady grove. Like holding a class in a bomb site. I am trying to think of good bits, as rants I know are boring, but I can't. Someone could have done a better film - it can be done. I was prepared to like it - I have very low standards. But I couldn't. It is staying with me, but It I think that is because it was such a long film. It has had one good effect - I am going to go and read about A. - I need to know if the Persian army started the battle with a hail of arrows. They probably did, but the accuracy of that in Stone's Alexander does not make up fo rthe fact that it was, in its core. just plain all wrong. And Farrell is getting a fat face. Linda

[marcus]

Hi Linda,I love your last comment "and Farrell is getting a fat face". Actually, I thought the same when he was drinking at his last banquet, wearing the lion headdress.Anyway, I'm surprised you clearly took against it so violently. Still, that's you're prerogative.However, I'm going to pick you up on just one thing - where Ptolemy says that Bactria was where Europe and Asia meet ... this was because there was a belief (I don't know how widespread) that the Jaxartes formed a barrier between Europe and Asia - because of the Scythians, and IIRC it's to do with the Caucasus mountains, too. So the script wasn't wrong - even if the information was (if you see what I mean).Sorry you didn't like the film - oh well, each to his own, I suppose :-)All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Apologies for the poor grammar - I meant "your prerogative", not "you're prerogative".M

[Linda]

Hi MarcusI don't mind being a prerogative... "you birthed me in a sack of hate" is not a great line. I am not dissing people who liked it, at all. I am sorry I didn't. Different people have different tolerances. I watched The Day after Tommorrow , which was also awful, and for some of the same reasons - confused plotting and unlikeable characters. Except I think Stone got it wrong as he cared too much, not that he didn't care at all. It was ok - I didn't think of leaving in the intermission, but I did buy some strong coffee and the aforementioned ice cream. I think part of my disappointment is that I know what great material is actually there. Stone was on BBC4, talking to Kirsty Wark, a night or so ago. Did you see it? It may be on again. I missed it.

Linda

[marcus]

Unfortunately, I don't get BBC4 - I'm a bit of a Luddite in that respect. Which is always a problem because the only decent programmes turn up on channels I can't see ... and all the rubbish is on channels I can.Oh well, I haven't got time to watch TV, anyway (is my excuse).Marcus

[kenny]

LindaYour absolutely right with everything you say,,, But I still liked it mainly for the action scenes,, I thought the battle scenes were great.With respect to what you said about Alexander riding for a long time at Gaugamela,, But yo gotta realise that the Persian front was well over a mile and Alexander was riding toi stretch the line to cause a gap so I would say that was correct.I liked the Biurton movie also,, But hey what do I know,,, Hail Marcus I think we both know Linda was right but it dont meanb were wrong to like it.I do mfeel Stone missed a chance to make a brilliant movie,,, I see no point at all With The Bagoas thing,, The sexual thing was covered with Hepheastion so I agree the bisexual thing was over done,,, bagoas had nothing at all to do with Alexander or what made him great.Kenny

[Linda]

Kenney, MarcusI stand corrected on a couple of points. I think my problem with the battle scenes is that as someone not that well versed in battle techniques, I didn't understand what was going on. The talk Alexander gave his men before the battle was a better bit of the film, but I didn't translate what Alexander said there with what happened on the field. The battle talk was still too concerned with niggly "you are not your father, you hate Persians" chat (the lack of comradeship was one of the other things I thought missing from the film, as it enhanced LOTR).LOTR had battles I could understand. And who can forget the scene in Zulu with the African warrior line appearing over the hill above the fort, and their song as they moved on. The difference in numbers was clear there.And also, when the text came up on the screen "Macedonian Center" - I thought for a split second we had gone into a different film, and this was some central command, like in the Empire Strikes back, before I realised it was the bit of the army. Renault deals with this problem of describing the tactics of a battle in real time by having Bagoas looking down on a battle. You could have had it from Darius's perspective - seeing what was going on from his chariot, or even from that bloody eagle's eye. You could have made stuff up, anything to get the idea across of a small army with good tactics.Bagoas - he was just a token. He could have been in it properly. I don't think you need to say that homosexual angle had been covered, but his role was not explained. It didn't need much to do it, but the viewer was left confused - who did Alexander love ("many kinds of love" is not good enough). The idea that Hephaestion was the only one Alexander loved, as stated in the film, is so wrong. Alexander loved lots of people - Craterus, Harpalus, all his friends, his mother, his teachers, his wife, his eromenos, his men. Hephaestion was the only one who loved Alexander as he wanted to be loved (but perhaps only one person could). Other way around. That is the thing about Alexander - he was ready to love. Linda

[kenny]

Linda HailI thought the depiction of numbers was shown very well.The real difference with the shape of the forces was the actual depth of the Persian forces,, The size was also evident by the way Parmenios Left wing nearly broke under such attach,,, As Philoptas stressed when Arguing later that Alexander spread them too thin.Alexander tried to spread and hold as to stob been outflanked. Alexanders plan was that the left and Middle held whilst Alexander sprinted off to the right,,, When the Persians saw that they belived Alexander was trying a flanking manouver and mirrored him,,, Having doing that the spread part of there front line till a gap appeared,,, Thats when we saw Alexander suddenly change direction and straight into it.A problem with the battle scene was the charriots,,, Alexander had noticed the Persians had prepaired a fareway for them and manouvered apropriately so the charriots bebame useless,,, Im not sure but I dont think the caused any real harm.Kenny

[Linda]

OK. I do remember the tactic, but couldn't work it out in the film. It was just a mess to me, and I suspect to the average film-goer, especially when Alexander cried at the end of the battle. But perhaps I am not good at war - you know the quote "my dear, the noise, the people".Did the Persian army start with a flurry of arrows?Linda

[kenny]

Hi LindaYour spot on with the idea Alexander crying after the battle,,, By the time of gaugamela Alexander was rather a seasoned veteran with war with all his battles and sieges up until that time.Im unsure with the battle opening with the volleys of arrows,,, Archery within battles escapes me,,, As I am aware with archers at Agincourt,,, The English archers cut the french army to pieces,, I never understood why archers were so effective there but not as much so in ancient battles.I am sure a consontrated bombardment of archers would have made a significant dent in both Alexanders Cavalry and Infantry,,,?Kenny

[justme]

Funny, it's all perspective isn't it? Some people have been putting the battle scene within the top ten of all time and others had a problem with it. It's all very interesting. :)Alexander did make the chariots useless in the movie. Darius wanted wholesale slaughter by using the scythed chariots as they could have plowed through untrained infantry. However, Alexander manouvered to make them useless by using the professional training of the phalanx. He opened ranks. They formed an open-ended box that trapped the horses on the sarissas and the chariots didn't cause nearly as much damage as expected. The really unexpected thing for Darius is that the phalanx didn't panic. They held ranks and did what they were supposed to do. If they had fled out of formation, the chariots would have caused the havoc intended. From looking at the battle scene in several documentaries, it seems Stone got this right. As for Alexander crying after the battle...while we all know that this was no where near his first, it is his first *in the movie*. He's not crying after the battle itself - he's crying in the aftermath, having visited the wounded. Hard-nosed veterans can break down after battle from sheer stress so I don't know see anything weird about Alexander crying after any battle.Also, I don't think that crying back then was a show of weakness as it's been made to be today. Look at Achilles in the Illiad. He's the greatest warrier, ever. Right? He fought 3 times in the Illiad and, I believe, cried 6 times!

[Linda]

But he cried when he won..and that didn't seem to be what Alexander would have done. He cried when he had no more worlds to conquer. Unless that is why he cried - because the battle was over and he couldn't do any more fighting until the next one. OK, some people are overcome by the horror of war, but mainly those caught up in it, not someone who was, to quote Arrian, "fighting mad". That isn't to say he didn't feel compassion, but that crying scene was more a 20th Century view of war's futility and waste. Not someone who planned to go and do it all again, this time with elephants. And he was the King - he needed to show an example - compassion for your dead and injured men is fine, but as far as I remember, he cried on the battlefield, not just the hospital. The battle may have been ok at showing what it was like to be a soldier, but it was confusing for the viewer, I think. And who has said it was one of the great screen battles..? Maybe I need to see it again, but it didn't make an impression on me - whereas (here I go again) the LOTR battles were just awesome.

[justme]

There was an earlier movie thread where at least one forum member counted it as amongst the best battle scenes ever. :)I saw the film a few times. He did not cry on the battlefield (during either battle) - just after the hospital visit, after the battle fever had died down. Remember, this isn't a documentary. It's poetic license to have a cry there. The narration at that point was that he now ruled the whole world, which really does tie in with "no more worlds to conquer" as you mentioned. You're saying that the crying scene is a modern view of war. However, I'm saying that *not crying* is a modern view of being manly. How funny is that? We can really go around in circles on this one.

[kenny]

Hail LindaYour right with the LORTR battle scenes been brilliant,,, But practically it was mostly flawed,,, In a prior post regarding the cavaly charge,,, All the ORCS needed to do was hold fast and lower the soears and the cavalry charge wouldnt get far beyong a few rows.Also when the cavalry regrouped and charged head on to the Elephants was tactical suicide,,, As I recall Alexander never charged smaller ewlephants head on.I thouyght the battle scene in the two towers was awesome,,, But again therecwere problems one was that the Orc numbers never deminished a few volleys from the archers would surely thinned them down.Kenny