300

[athenas owl]

I am pretty darn sure Alexander had sex with whomever he pleased. There is enough in the old sources to say so, and obviously enough of them said so or took it for granted that it wasn't considered worth commenting on. Now I didn't say he was bi-sexual...a modern term.

How much of the histories, either way are stitled by the perceptions of the writers? Especially under Roman influence.

As for Titanic making a gagillion dollars, what does that have to do with anything? Proof that people like a sappy love story?

[marcus]

I'm not sure what this has got to do with the subject of this thread, Efstathios. Still ...

I see that most people here admitt that we cant know if Alexander was bi-sexual or not, regardless of each person's oppinion, but yet Stone in his movie certainly gave a bi-sexual approach.

Alexander the Great made 130 million worldwide, while Titanic made 1,8 billion. By these figures you can understand what we are talking about.

Not at all - what evidence is there that the disparity in takings was anything to do with the business of Alexander's sexuality? And, if that was the reason, then people stayed away because of what they had heard, rather than what was actually in the film - after all, if they knew what was in the film then they must have seen it, and therefore this would have been reflected in higher takings. So there is no evidence that the disparity in takings has anything to do with how Stone actually portrayed Alexander in the film.

[athenas owl]

I agree Marcus..it never even opened in the Southern U.S...they knew it was a lost cause there.

And while it did tank in the US, UK, and other English speaking countries, it was the top grossing film of the year in others.

[ScottOden]

I agree Marcus..it never even opened in the Southern U.S...they knew it was a lost cause there.

Not exactly true. I live in the Southern US (North Alabama) and I saw Alexander on opening day at the theater. The general consensus among my friends (most of whom are not Alexander-o-philes) who saw it was that it was just a bad movie, with little or no mention of Alexander's sexuality figuring into their comments. It needed more Gaugamela and a less weepy Colin Farrell.

Their biggest complaint (in the theatrical version -- most of them never bought the DVD) was with Anthony Hopkins' history lessons, with the way it was edited, and -- with the exception of the actors playing Cleitus, Craterus, and Olympias -- horrible casting. Me, I liked parts of it and loathed others. I have the director's cut DVD and will occasionally pop it in to watch Gaugamela over again.

Scott

[jasonxx]

Spartan with bare Chests. Demonic looking Xerxes and monsterous aparitions comming at the Spartans in the movie. So what , and the ideologists that argue its nothing but a blood fest. Maybe so but if Stone was so called telling a real story about Alexander. Then 300 is telling the real story about war, Kiling and invaders.

War is diry grotesque and brutal,thers absolutely nothing pretty about it. And the reality is human nature people want to see this stuff and have done so since time im imerial. As a rule people watch motor racing etc in anticipation for a crash.Boxing is blood and gut people want to see some one get a kicking.

If people still want to wear romantic tinted glasses that society is civilised I beg to differ. people will alaways have predudices and wierd practices. Therefor its fair to say 300 is true to the essence of thermopalai. It may be a million miles from historical fact. But fundamentaly its right. Im pleased to see Leonidas as he was shouting and more or less telling Xerxes in no particular terms to go get [edited - moderator].

With he demonisation of the persian hoards. I doubt the British saw Hitler and the Germans as Mary poppins and a few Chihmney sweeps. Hitles was satanised as were the Nazi hoards.We knoe that no matter whos on whos side. There are no real goodies or baddies. they are just soldiers probably obeying the orders of bad men.

300 is basical Nationalism the home land defending against the foriegn invaders.Its a good old cowboy and indian film with knives and spears.More blood and guts with special effects. Please anything to save me from any more Cartoons, American un funny comedies and dull period dramas.

As an adition point. just out of interest I went into a video sho and noticed shelves full of The Queen. I asked the assistant how popular the movie had been. he said one or 2 people rented it but it wasnt his cup of tea, He basically said hed rather have his eses eaten out by wasps.

bring on 300 and a whole lot moreand please some entertainment. Some have well most knocked Sin City, but I thought it was great.

[Efstathios]

I mentioned the gross of Alexander and Titanic in comparisson because of the comment that Alexander was a succes with a high gross. Well even compared to similar epic movies, like Braveheart e.t.c, it wasnt.

Anyway, i think that you all agree that this movie could be made alot, lot, lot better than this.

Now I didn't say he was bi-sexual...a modern term

I've heard this so many times. Why exactly is it a modern term, since the ancient Greeks called it just "kinaidos" which is a far more negative word than "homosexual". I have analysed it some time ago, for those who remember. "Kinaidos" is he who makes a shamefull act. It derives directly from the words "kinw"= move, and "aidos"= common decency, shame, ethos. So the meaning is he who provokes the common decency, and is shamefull.

A very harsh word for someone that has different sexual tastes isnt it? But still, thats how they called them.

And again, remember Aristophanes and the mockery of those that were dressed in womens' cloths. Now, why should any other form of homosexuality, meaning those people that didnt dress in womens' cloths, be more accepted?

[sikander]

Greetings,

Other than a tempest in a teapot generated by peroplke who felt a need to *create* this little tempest, the primary problem with Alexander had little to do with any sexual issues, hetero-bi or homo- and a lot to do with it being a poorly made movie, with poor character development, predictable scripting and some unintentional hilarity at the oddest moments.

The casting was also an issue; Colin simply did not have the power, charisma or ability to "pull" the audience. It was not the weeping, since that was a minor thing and we have cetainly come far enough to accept that males *do* cry without it impugning their perceived"masculinity"( much of which is a cultural construct in the first place, and varies culture to culture).. or at least, in the secure cultures this is seen as natural.

Most viewers had difficulty following a disjointed script and understanding the symbolism Stone played with; too often, the target audience has been spoon-fed a predictable storyline and story development. That was a weakness on the part of the audience.

But the poor script, odd casting, quirky scene development and poor peripheral character development left too many gaps in an already cmplicated story.
Many viewers did not want more "battle", gods know we can find that in *any* typical movie.. what they hoped for was a story, and it was in the story telling that Stone had difficulty- that, and maintaining his Alexander's development. For me, the two scenes that jerked the audience up short when I was observing (and I am not going to go into the historical,, cultural errors, since the majority of the audiences neither knew nor cared) was the bedroom scene with the "cat fight" between Alexander and "Roxanne"- which resulted in much hilarity- and the scene with Hephaistion dying while Alexander "angsted out the window" as one person said..which reuslted in people laughing so hard they were crying..

Not one person in the audience seemed to care about any homoerotic overtones..

300 is a paean to the predictable and typical; it has a specific, targeted market and fits perfectly into Miller's stated *purpose* of the movie as a socio-political mythology. Stone at least tried to break some new ground with his vision.

Regards,
Sikander

[Alita]

I’ve no idea to what year you refer by “teens”,

I'm sorry about that Paralus. I should have been more specific. I was actually referring to years 7-10.

From what I can tell, the study of Greece covers far more than in my day. Not only is Alexander included (at least two possible questions at a glance – “personalities and their times” and “historical periods”) but so too are the Diadochoi and the Hellenistic period.

Yes, there does seem to be a lot more discussed about ancient Greece and especially Alexander the Great in History texts (especially if they are published by Oxford) today than 20 or 30 years ago. I was never out of resource materials when looking in my school's library. It's the school's own syllabus which was lacking in its program. Being a new teacher at that school, and being a newish sort of school, I think I was just meant to be flexible and easy about adding material to the curriculum as it suited me. This is what I did in the end, although I was not happy about the amount of time we had to cover the different topics versus the number of units I had to teach in the year. There is also a move now to teach more Australian History (at least in Victorian schools, which is where I live) which will make the time teachers have to spend on ancient civilizations topics even less.

At least pupils in your schools get to study Ancient History. The general attitude in British schools is that after the age of about 8 there's no need to teach Ancient History. In some secondary schools the pupils might be lucky enough to study a bit of Roman history at age 11, but after that Ancient History disappears completely.

Marcus that is shocking. I would have thought schools in England would be devouring ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt and the Hellenistic era. Funny how many respected historians are British, when you consider this reality which you have just pointed out to me. Perhaps not teaching high school students much history leads to a genuine thirst later on, hence the great number of mature age history scholars.

I agree Marcus..it never even opened in the Southern U.S...they knew it was a lost cause there.

And while it did tank in the US, UK, and other English speaking countries, it was the top grossing film of the year in others.

Well put athenasowl. I was waiting for Alexander to come out and preparing to go and see it with friends, when suddenly a friend informed me that it already had come ... and gone.
I wonder if it will be the same story here in Oz with 300...

Alita wrote:
This, and it was a Christian school, and it’s common knowledge Alexander was a major instrument in the spread of Christianity into Asia.

Tell me more. I'd be interested to read that.

When Alexander spread Greek culture into Asia, it laid the groundwork for the development of the churches in Asia minor and greater Asia by Greek, Jewish and Assyrian missionaries.

Cheers.

[smittysmitty]

'When Alexander spread Greek culture into Asia, it laid the groundwork for the development of the churches in Asia minor and greater Asia by Greek, Jewish and Assyrian missionaries.'


hmm! ... and I have a daughter that will be commencing year 7 next year at a Victorian school.

[Paralus]

When Alexander spread Greek culture into Asia, it laid the groundwork for the development of the churches in Asia minor and greater Asia by Greek, Jewish and Assyrian missionaries.

Personally, I don't think Alexander had anything at all to do with the spreading of Christianity. On that logic, one might as well say that the spread was aided far more by Gnaius Flaminimus, Licius Paullus, Lucius Cornelius Scipio,Licinius Lucullus and Pompey the Great (who conquered Greece and the Greek east) as well as Julius Caesar who created the body which Christianity infected and spread from.

[athenas owl]

When I was in high school I was lucky enough to take a lot of specia classesl, including Ancient History. This was in the California State School System, which then was one of the best on the country. Even there, in the electives ancient history went like this, basically: "Alexander the Great died, his empire fell apart...oh, look, here comes the Romans". University courses, the general Western Civ ones, weren't much better.

As for Stone's Alexander, well...I had no problems following it at all. Guess that's just me. I had avoided it in theatres because of the terrible reviews and first watched the D/C on TV. I loved it, recognised it's problems and to this day will never understand the savaging it took. Though the new cut is far superior, I must say... I love the old plays, though I rarely get to see any Greek plays performed, but I do go to the summer long Shakespearean festival in my state every year. This film, to me was more like those..

The 300 looks visually stunning, I will see it because of that. Frank Miller, who wrote the graphic novel, is a reactionary who hates Moslems and I think it is reflected in his portrayal of the Persians (proto Moslems? to him). With that in mind, it sounds like the movie has stayed true to his vision. And I'll watch it for Gerard Butler and a bevy of handsome men in leather speedos do ubermanly things.

Perhaps ATG's responsibility for the spread of Chrisitanity was the process of Hellenisation, the "universal" language of Greek that facilitated the spread of it in Asia Minor, etc. And didn't the later Seluecids already cause enough unrest before the Romans got there? The Maccabees and all that?

[marcus]

The 300 looks visually stunning, I will see it because of that. Frank Miller, who wrote the graphic novel, is a reactionary who hates Moslems and I think it is reflected in his portrayal of the Persians (proto Moslems? to him). With that in mind, it sounds like the movie has stayed true to his vision. And I'll watch it for Gerard Butler and a bevy of handsome men in leather speedos do ubermanly things.

Maybe Miller is anti-Muslim (I don't know so won't speculate). However, although he has clearly gone somewhat over the top, for the purposes of a simple-to-follow graphic novel, the blame for the stereotyping of the Persians during the Persian Wars as bad, bad people rests initially with Herodotus. It is certainly understandable why the Iranians have taken such umbrage with the film, and from the point of view of international diplomacy (or lack thereof) it couldn't really have come at a worse, or better, time (depending on one's viewpoint).

My reasons for wanting to see it do not encompass an almost naked Gerard Butler and the leather speedos; but the descriptions I have read of the portrayal of Queen Gorgo play their part in hastening my little feet to the cinema booking window ...

ATB

[Paralus]

...the blame for the stereotyping of the Persians during the Persian Wars as bad, bad people rests initially with Herodotus. It is certainly understandable why the Iranians have taken such umbrage with the film, and from the point of view of international diplomacy (or lack thereof) it couldn't really have come at a worse, or better, time (depending on one's viewpoint).

The blame for such does indeed go back to Herodotus. So also the blame for the entrenched perception of Persian armies as untrained, undisciplined - not to say unspeakable - and polyglot rabbles made up of millions. All driven to war under their effete Iranian master's whip, of course. A perception that Greek and Macedonian historians perpetuated and which persists down to today.

Despite recent archaeological work - and not so recent - the "rehabilitation" of the Persian Empire and its culture proceeds a-plod. Those who, like George Cawkwell for instance, present history from an even slightly more favourable Iranian outlook are described as "controversial" at best and "Persian apologists" at worst. A fellow Australian sums up the later in a rant, ostensibly about multiculturalism, but which becomes a dismissal - to varying degrees - of several historians:

Is the modern need to stroke multicultural sensibilities by “being fair to the Persians” more widely felt among classicists?

...The recent wave of pro-Persian enthusiasm has an embarrassingly obvious political cause: the “insistent lessons of multiculturalism” referred to by Peter Green. But scholarly attacks on Herodotus of one kind or another are almost as old as the Histories itself. In fact, as anyone reading Tom Holland or Peter Green soon discovers, scoring off this ancient historian is a way countless scholars have for generations advanced their careers—a pathetic exercise in academic parasitism that began with Plutarch’s ‘The Malice of Herodotus’ nearly 2000 years ago.

Pick up a copy of George Cawkwell’s 2003 The Greek Wars and you’ll see what I mean. Dr Cawkwell is a Fellow at University College, Oxford, a professional classics man and no doubt esteemed in his field. Yet in the first paragraph on his first page he can’t resist a sneering tone. Herodotus, he writes, told “a pretty story” regarding Darius that was “perhaps truer than Herodotus knew”. [The story being, that after the Greeks burned Sardis, inflicting a humiliating defeat on the Persian king, Darius asked a servant to forcefully remind him, at dinner each day, to seek revenge—“Sire, remember the Athenians!”]

Cawkwell embodies the new “let’s be fair to the Persians” school of classics—though in his hands it’s more a case of “let’s demean the Greeks”.

Needless to say, I believe Mr Sandall goes somewhat too far in that assessment. Mr Sandall then goes on to thoroughly denigrate the "despotic" Persian Empire and culture and conclude that, because such a top down society could not produce an Herodotus, it was seemingly unworthy in some fashion.

Never mind some two centuries or more of existence. Never mind that that heavily romanticised defenders of Hellenic freedom at Thermopylae and Plataea, Sparta (and, ironically, her at the point of a xyston slaves the helots), spent as many centuries producing the exact same number of cultural anthropologists, historians and written records of its cultural life.

Worth the read though. The culture wars continue apace.

[amyntoros]

I mentioned the gross of Alexander and Titanic in comparisson because of the comment that Alexander was a succes with a high gross. Well even compared to similar epic movies, like Braveheart e.t.c, it wasnt.

What was said in this thread was that although Alexander didn’t do well at the US box office it was an international success. This is true – according to boxofficemojo.com its lifetime international grosses were $133,001,001. While Braveheart’s US receipts were much higher than Alexander’s, internationally the lifetime grosses were almost the same - $134,800,000. So, outside of the United States, Alexander and Braveheart performed equally well.

Despite recent archaeological work - and not so recent - the "rehabilitation" of the Persian Empire and its culture proceeds a-plod.

A couple of relevant articles written by an Iranian professor can be found on the web. The first, which discusses 300 is called Dr. Kaveh Farrokh-The 300 Movie: Separating Fact from Fiction. Halfway down this rather detailed piece (which includes images of Persian military costume) there is a link to the second article, The Alexander Movie: How are Iranians and Greeks portrayed?. Both are worth the read for anyone who has the time and is interested in a modern day Iranian perspective on both Persian and ancient Greek cultures. The articles are considerably more objective than the reports which have been appearing in the media.

One more thing: Whilst discussing the “blondism” of Alexander, Professor Farrokh gives a link to a raging debate on Alexander’s appearance. It was on Pothos, of course. Unfortunately, the link doesn’t work any more – probably because we changed the format of the forum. Pity … I’m curious as to what we said.

I almost forgot - Jona Lendering also wrote a page on the 300 movie. Thanks go to Rogueclassicm for the link.

Best regards,

[Efstathios]

Maybe a key element in this matter and in the authenticity of Herodotus' sayings, is that he was half Persian, from a Scythian mother. Although he was probably feeling maybe totally Greek, still being a half Persian must have made him a little bit more objective and not biased.

The Persian empire's armies have been known as "hordes". Meaning troops that acted like masses. Soldiers that didnt actually want to be there.

But except Herodotus, we get the same descriptions about the Persian empire from other writters too, and even from the biographers of Alexander. People like Ptolemy, who were there and saw it first hand. Would all these people just lie?

Michael, what is your image about the Persian empire?