Request for comments regarding Stone's Alexander

[azara]

Hi, all! I like the film and am enjoying this thread very much!
When he was called to Mieza, Aristotle was forty and was not a grandfather figure like film directors persist in representing him. He was an avant-garde philosopher still in his prime who, for A. and his mates, could have represented a "different" paternal figure, or a different role model, source of wisdom but also of conflicts; this should have been a narrative opportunity not to miss.
By the way, I'd make a distinction between venial inaccuracies, due to the need to compress so much matter into a few scenes, and important ones, which miss some fundamental points in history or in the characters' psychology. I think that there are not many of these latter in Stone's film. Good bye for the moment Azara

[amyntoros]

Hello everyone, and many, many thanks for your contributions so far.

I’m afraid that complaints of how Alexander was portrayed (or who portrayed him) won’t help me here. I need valid historical criticisms and not personal opinions and I thank everyone who has supplied the former, whatever their personal thoughts about the movie. When you’re all tired of this thread I shall watch the movie again and put the inaccuracies in chronological order. Must say I never caught some of them before. For instance, I didn’t notice the errors on the mosaic map at first watching, and I had no idea that Antigonus didn’t campaign after the Granicus! (Really must start to read up on the lives of the Successors!) I’ll probably separate the info into two lists – one where facts can be verified against the Alexander histories and one that requires a wider knowledge such as Aristotle’s age; the questionable use of euthanasia; the art works, etc.

I have a few thoughts of own as to scenes where Stone’s need to conflate events (thereby avoiding the prohibitive cost of extra sets) causes historical inaccuracies. My memory is foggy on this first one, but doesn’t Alexander ask Stateira the famous Porus question, “How would you like to be treated?” Then there’s the fact the movie places Darius’ family in Babylon and not at the battlefield. There’s a conflation of the mutinies at Opis and the Beas – in the movie it is in India where Alexander jumps into the crowd, seizes upon the most vociferous complainants, and has them executed. There may be more evidence of this blending in Colin Farrel’s speech to his men, but I don’t remember.

Karen noted that Bagoas’ dance and kiss takes place at the dinner where Cleitus was murdered. Now, the movie places this dinner in India – wasn’t the army still in Bactria when Cleitus died? (Or Sogdia - my knowledge of both ancient and modern geography is atrocious!) Roxane is already pregnant when Hephaistion dies, and the movie appears to place Alexander’s death shortly afterwards. It certainly doesn’t show a year between the two deaths because Roxane remains pregnant.

Again, I’m foggy on this one, but does the movie conflate the pages’ conspiracy and the so-called conspiracy of Philotas? My recollection is of a cursory treatment of the death of Philotas - I don’t recall much in the way of detail.

That’s it for now. Keep it coming folks!

Best regards,

Amyntoros

PS. Is anyone else having problems with the login? I'm being bounced out after every couple of pages or after I've made a post.

[azara]

Another one: Alexander shouldn't sport that absurdly long hair in the first place, but definitely he shouldn't on his deathbed, because he is supposed to have cut it eight months before when Hephaestion died. Had I been the director, I would have found inspiration in the Pergamon head and would have exploited this new, mournful look in the last scenes.
Moreover: every time Alexander dwells in Nebuchadnezzar's palace, his dressing style becomes too fanciful to be true. Plutarch states that he never wore trousers and in adopting the Persian dress avoided effeminacy: now, what are those sweeping mantles and see-through gowns? I tried to find an explanation: it could be a reference, on Stone's part, to the sumptuous and colorfoul image of the "good King Alexander" in medioeval miniatures, to suggest that he is becoming a living legend, but I'm afraid it is too subtle and far fetched.
And yes, the pages conspiracy and the Philotas affaire are treated as a single episode; by the way, one of the pages is seen as serving Alexander a poisoned cup, while the sources speak of a plan for killing him in his bed (if I remember right).
Best regards Azara

[karen]

Hi Amyntoros (et al):

I have a few thoughts of own as to scenes where Stone’s need to conflate events (thereby avoiding the prohibitive cost of extra sets) causes historical inaccuracies.

It occurred to me as I was reading others' lists and making my own that virtually all, if not all, the major historical inaccuracies were there for this reason, to telescope the story so as not only to avoid having to build additional sets but to fit it into a feature-film length of time. So we know they were purposeful, not actually due to sloppy research -- that might be a point worth making.

My memory is foggy on this first one, but doesn’t Alexander ask Stateira the famous Porus question, “How would you like to be treated?”

Yep, right you are.

Karen noted that Bagoas’ dance and kiss takes place at the dinner where Cleitus was murdered. Now, the movie places this dinner in India – wasn’t the army still in Bactria when Cleitus died? (Or Sogdia - my knowledge of both ancient and modern geography is atrocious!)

Sogdia -- it was in the city of Marakanda (or as it's known today, Samarkand). The ruins of the palace in which it happened still exist.

ATB,
Karen

[marcus]

I have a few thoughts of own as to scenes where Stone’s need to conflate events (thereby avoiding the prohibitive cost of extra sets) causes historical inaccuracies. My memory is foggy on this first one, but doesn’t Alexander ask Stateira the famous Porus question, “How would you like to be treated?” Then there’s the fact the movie places Darius’ family in Babylon and not at the battlefield. There’s a conflation of the mutinies at Opis and the Beas – in the movie it is in India where Alexander jumps into the crowd, seizes upon the most vociferous complainants, and has them executed. There may be more evidence of this blending in Colin Farrel’s speech to his men, but I don’t remember.

I think that is an important point. That isn't to say that the times when Stone conflates episodes shouldn't be in the list of 'inaccuracies', but you should at least acknowledge that Stone will have perhaps felt the need to conflate them. After all, the film was already about 3 hours long ... to add the Granicus and Issus to the other battles would have made it twice as long!

Anyway, the way the film was made does indicate that the campaign had already been going on for some time, so it's not as if Stone ignored the fact that the battles happened ... he obviously chose Gaugamela as the most appropriate point to begin the campaign part of the story. Whether he was right or wrong to do this is a matter for our opinion, not of 'inaccuracy'.

Therefore, of course, it makes sense that he should transpose Cleitus's saving A's life to Gaugamela, because it is necessary to show it for reference at the Cleitus killing scene. Yes, historically it's inaccurate, but in the interests of fairness it should be acknowledged why Stone did it.

More of a 'problem', as I see it, is where things were conflated unnecessarily. I haven't understood why there was a need to conflate the Pages' and Philotas Conspiracies. In the Director's Cut we actually see the hypaspists going to arrest Dimnus, and Dimnus committing suicide (which was left out of the theatrical version) ... another thing to consider, therefore, is which version we are looking at!

ATB

[azara]

One more inaccuracy, this time a factual one: Olympias mentions Kynnane as a suitable bride for Alexander (at least in the version I saw), but Kynnane was the daughter of Philip and Audata and therefore Alexander's half-sister; such a marriage was impossible according to Macedonian law. Why did Stone feel the need to mention Kynnane? And why did nobody stop him from making a mistake? All the best Azara

[dean]

Hello,

I must admit that i love this thread.
I think that just to mention, I have a handy analogy to describe what Stone has done.
I mean- to me- Peter Jackson- was meticulously true to Tolkien's classic- down to the last detail- he even tried to reproduce a "feel" to it that the illustrations had in the original book and it was just a piece of fiction. Alexander's story was true.

It is a shame that Stone didn't take a leaf out of his book...

So, I understand that some of the scenes must have been very expensive- and that he had to decide which bits to miss out. It just happens that he missed out Issus- and the Grannicus- perhaps going for a Gaugamelissus? with both battles just popped into one nice neat package(oops- minus 15 elephants).

Anyway, Amyntoros- your idea sounds interesting- and certainly could be used as an excellent idea for a university project to get the students to watch the movie and then study the sources to find out what was historically correct or otherwise- (even a beginner would be able to spot one or two for sure).

One scene springs to mind- the death of Hephaesion- he is on the bed and Alexander and him "hug" or something and then Alexander stands up- goes to the window and loses himself in some strange monologue while Hephaestion "pops his clogs"(love the expression) in the background with a cough and a splutter.
Now did Hephaestion die with Alexander present- me thinks not.

Well, it had been fun playing sherlock.
Best regards my dear Watson.
Dean

[jasonxx]

Dean Your analogy about the Lord Of The Rings is spot on. Ideally Alexanders story is true and theres enough action and intrigue to fill all the Tolkien books. And thats how I think Stone failed but it was his only choice. He tried to pack it all in and it looked rag shag and messy. Fair enough he could cut some of the stupid stuff out that had no real meaning to the Alexander story. The Cave pictures and the wedding sex scene.

But for Alexander trilogy of movies to do justice would be a bigger gamble for any studio. The Lord of The Rings has a massive following and the gamble wopuld have been less as Alexander really is a specialised topic. Even though as heroic in battle as aAragorn etc it really would be a big risk for such a venture. The Rings has the adition of fantasy that draws extra attention.

A real true to life Alexander movie would indeed satisfy the select academics and studiers of Alexander but the masses Its way too Risky. One Gladiator was Good. but to try 3 with it would run out of gas. .

Maybe a safe bet for Alexander would be along the lines of a mini series that the BBC did on julius Caesar. But I think the world has more of a general interest in the Romans anyway. What do you think Marcus

Regards

Kenny

[Paralus]

Lord of the Rings eh? I believe my view of Stone's film is well enough known: The Produce of the Rings.

Anyway, not in any particular order, a couple of blurts across Stone's gluts…..

Interesting that in India we have Craterus in place of Coenus at the Beas. More interestingly, the army mutinies at Opis on the Beas before having reached a climactic battle at the Jhelum. A battle in which Craterus leads the phalanx – along with the aforementioned absent Antigonus – in the main battle. Well, possibly Stone simply has his Alexander practise his Opis speech – including the offer to meet all debts and the training of the 30,000 Asian "successors"– in India. Thinking on it, it may well have been better to offer such before relieving himself of a substantial portion of that liability in Gedrosia? He was a cunning fellow that Alexander!

Fascinating that after Philip's murder in Pella it is Hephaestion who acclaims Alexander king. Witnessing the event, having had Scotty beam them back aboard lightning fast Bactrian camels from the Hellespont, are a distraught Parmenio and a fraught Attalos.

Cassander – on whose absence from the campaign another has already remarked – has the temerity to utter those despicable lines about a night attack attributed to Parmenion by a hostile source. He further has the gall to protest a marriage policy he was not ever required to follow. And Parmenio, Macedonia's top soldier, suggests running away from the royal army to the coast. Whaa??? Stone must have been that source.

Philotas, devoted to his dad Parmenio, left the Companion Cavalry at some time during the Guagamela/Issus/Granicus all-at-once fracas to collect a message from him to take back to the right wing and the king. A busy lad was Philotas and any wonder he was judicially murdered: fancy deserting one's post at three battles in the one day!

All that aside, the most annoying aspect of the entire fiction? The soliloquy in Babylon. That puerile prattle about Persian liberation and racial fusion. I failed to notice WW Tarn in the credits but surely his ghost was there? The fact that Hephaestion intrudes with the correct observation – made by others of course – that they were conquering and enslaving the populations via the never ending Alexandrias, is totally outweighed by the bucolic babble Stone has Alexander blurt about freeing the locals to learn and become rich in the new Greek cities being established for them in the world of the brotherhood of man. Crap. Any wonder the Macedonians were suffering gall bladder attacks and bouts of indignant indigestion over their roast venison and unmixed wine by this time. That's enough to make even the most battle hardened Hypaspist heave-ho his last krater.

[val]

Hi everyone!
Some more inaccuracies to add to the list:


Olympias is shown to be in Macedon when Philip is killed, but she was in Epirus at the time. In that particular scene, many other characters that actually were elsewhere are shown present, like Attalus, who was in Asia.

Alexander is at the back of the theatre when his father is killed but, in reality, he had already entered with his uncle (whose marriage, the reason for the celebration, is not mentioned in the film).

The Indian king (probably meant to be Poros) is shown to retreat after the battle and we are left uncertain as to what happened to him later. He became one of Alexander’s satraps. That scene is misleading as it implies that because of Alexander’s wound and how savage that battle was (remember Ptolemy saying it was the end of reason) Alexander decided to go back to Babylon. The true reason behind that decision is up to debate.

Kings are called Your Majesty; that way of addressing royalty did not exist at the time.


The Internet Movie Data base adds these:

Errors in geography: The "mirror image" map that Ptolemy refers to shows Italy as being part of the Empire. This was never the case.

Anachronisms: Ptolemy I is depicted recounting the story of Alexander in 283 B.C. The Lighthouse at Alexandria, seen in the background, was built during the reign of his son Ptolemy II, around 270 B.C.

Factual errors: In the battle at Gaugamela, the Persian armies are shown wearing dark clothes. In reality they were yellow and light purple.

[pankration]

I commend all of you for your detective work and your scholarly analysis of what should have been an epic but was anything but. Historical inaccuracies are a pain but what bothered me the most was the blatant emasculation of Alexander. Colin Farrell came across as an effeminate weakling and the way his sexuality was portrayed does a disservice to the thousands of historians who have yet to find evidence of homosexuality or bisexuality in Alexander. Hell, if I was gay I'd be pissed off for the wimpy way I was portrayed. There's a lot more to this part of the discussion on www.macedoniaontheweb.com.

[marcus]

Olympias is shown to be in Macedon when Philip is killed, but she was in Epirus at the time. In that particular scene, many other characters that actually were elsewhere are shown present, like Attalus, who was in Asia.

Actually, I think it is generally agreed that Olympias was back in Macedon by the time of Philip's death.

ATB

[marcus]

I commend all of you for your detective work and your scholarly analysis of what should have been an epic but was anything but. Historical inaccuracies are a pain but what bothered me the most was the blatant emasculation of Alexander. Colin Farrell came across as an effeminate weakling and the way his sexuality was portrayed does a disservice to the thousands of historians who have yet to find evidence of homosexuality or bisexuality in Alexander. Hell, if I was gay I'd be pissed off for the wimpy way I was portrayed. There's a lot more to this part of the discussion on www.macedoniaontheweb.com.

Which of course has nothing at all to do with the question of historical inaccuracy.

[Yauna]

Errors in geography: The "mirror image" map that Ptolemy refers to shows Italy as being part of the Empire. This was never the case.

Val

I think this one is not an error

South Italy was hellenic and in fact was one of the most powerfull economies in western lands. Think of Siracusa that even fought against Rome and Pirro also helped Greek cities against Rome.

[val]

Hello Everyone,

Thanks Marcus and Yauna for the corrections.
About Olympias whereabouts during Philip’s murder I wasn’t completely sure; so I checked Bosworth’s Conquest and Empire (unfortunately I don’t have the sources with me right now, just a few books) and it said:

¨(Olympias) Alexander’s mother had returned from her voluntary exile in Epirus when heard the news of Philip’s death and showed her satisfaction.(…)¨
(From chapter 2 The conquest of an empire, part 1, please notice that this is a quote I made from an Spanish translated edition of the book).

Then In Hammond ´s The Genius of Alexander he states: Alxander remained away until a Corinthian, named Demarato convinced Philip and this called his son. However, Olympias remained in Molosia. (This is also an abbreviated Spanish- English translation).

However you are probably right and, tough some sources left Olympias in Epirus, the most probable is that Alexander returned to Macedonia with his mother, so thanks.

Yauna, you are right when you say that southern Italy was a Hellenic colony, being Syracuse one of the most important cities, but it was not part of Alexander’s empire. That was the mistake. In fact, in the scene where Hephaestion dies, Alexander’s tell him about his plans to go to Italy and get Sicily where they would pay him great tributes and then go for the Romans.

All the best,
Valeria.