What´s your favourite scene of Stone´s ATG

Post here about Alexander in film, TV, radio, other websites, YouTube etc.

Moderator: pothos moderators

aleksandros
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Boston

Post by aleksandros »

Why did Stone make that thing with the bust on the Hindu Kush? It was a directing spice or it has a historical ground?

There was one scene i didn't get. At the wedding party one guy offers to Alexander something like an egg in a brass plate. What was it?
ΤΩ ΚΡΑΤΕΡΩ
User avatar
rocktupac
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by rocktupac »

I love the entire movie, despite the obvious inaccuracies, but to narrow it down to just one scene is too difficult.

My two favorite scenes are on the "decline" of Alexander in the movie. The first is in India (presumably the mutiny at Opis) when Alexander is speeking to his men, attempting to persuade them further into India, and Crateros confesses the armies grievences. Very well written and beautifully captures the passion of Alexander, and the mood.

The second is the battle in India. Simply for the cinematography and editing. The forest was a magical place amongst chaos. To top it all off, Alexander charging the elephant is one of the best scenes in film history. I also love what Stone chose to do with the "red" coloring after Alexander had been wounded. I had never seen anything like it and was in awe.
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Rock Hi

Complimentsd to your choices. Im not at all sure with the so called Decline. For me I think the whole decline story is pretty pumped up for one reason or Another. The so called destruct button is based on personal ideas.

I dont think Alexander slumped into someking of Alcoholic fueled meglamania. I feel he was as in control of his facelties as he ever was. Maybe his troops moral etc declined. But he was still upto the job and at 32 where veterens were living and fighting over 60. Phisically 32 at that time was very young and with the enviroment regardless of wounds he was still as strong as a lion.

Ok he got upset destraut with Hepheastion thats normal. But we know he was ready capable a and willing to do some more conquests. Even the so called Meglamanic Purges of the Satarps and govenors has been exagerated. I would wager all those put to death had been up to no good whilst he was away unless someone can name an innocent?

I know alcoholism etc and I dont buy any of this decline stuff.Its all an adequate excuse and reason why he may have sucombed to the mystery illness.Where as its hard to excuse such an ilness mysteriously killing a hell of a hard Bastard including his best buddy. the very exclusive illness. All little excused to fog over the poison that got into the guys veins.

Kenny
aleksandros
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Boston

Post by aleksandros »

Excuse me but i cannot go for that scene.
The battle was fought at the banks of the flooded because of the moonsons river Hydaspes under heavy rain in a muddy terrain. I didn't see neither the river nor the rain. I didn't see the gigantic Porus and didn't see Indian cavalry and Alexander was not wounded severly in that battle for Christ sake! And ofcourse the mutiny took place after that battle not before.

Has a topic ever been created in this forum about historical inaccurancies of the film Alexander?
ΤΩ ΚΡΑΤΕΡΩ
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

alexanthros wrote:Has a topic ever been created in this forum about historical inaccurancies of the film Alexander?
I created one (with a purpose). :) You can find it here.

Best regards
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
rocktupac
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:52 am
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Post by rocktupac »

I totally agree jasonxx, but I simply meant the "decline" in the context of the movie, not his actual life. And I know the movie is filled with historical inaccuracies, expecially the battle in India, but I still enjoyed it immensely as a cinematic marvel.
ruthaki
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:31 pm
Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada

AG movie

Post by ruthaki »

I saw the movie 3 times, each time watching for different aspects but now I can't remember any one in particular that impressed me most.
I enjoyed the scenes with Olympias and Alexander as a child -- the beginning when Philip comes in to her bedroom etc. I also liked the entry into Babylon as it looked like what I'd imagined it might have been (from a picture I have of Babylon -- they must have copied it) and there were others, some part more memorable than others. Now I've finally got a DVD player I am hoping to buy the DVD and watch it again. Though it wasn't the 'best' movie, and there were certainly lots of the important parts left out, to me, it was exciting to see it. I don't believe they could ever make a 'perfect' movie about Alexander. For one thing, it would be far too long! They might have done a better job of casting, but this one was far superior to that first lame attempt when Burton played Alexander and the sets were all phony.
User avatar
azara
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: Italy

Post by azara »

To Alexanthros: the gift on a tray is an orange, which then was an unknown marvel for Europeans. In fact lemons and oranges, originary of Northern India, were first introduced into Middle East and Europe as a consequence of Alexander's expedition. Best regards Azara
aleksandros
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Boston

Post by aleksandros »

thank you so much azara!
ΤΩ ΚΡΑΤΕΡΩ
karen
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:03 am

The dilemma

Post by karen »

I knew and appreciated what Stone was trying to do with that bloodshot scene, but it didn't work for me. I think the reason is this: just as Amyntoros says, it's a foray into Alexander's viewpoint. But there was not much of anything shown from his viewpoint previously in the movie, so it was jarring. Whether due to the script or acting or both, he's too much of a cypher to allow the viewer to relate to him enough to make the blood-red scene contiguous with the rest. (How are you going to imagine yourself in the place of a guy who weeps after his greatest victory and hisses like a cat at his bride on his wedding night anyway?)

Of course it's going to work better for those who know the story well enough to see the scene as if the preceding portion of the movie had told it well.

I've been thinking about it for several days now, but I'm stumped: I can't come up with a favourite scene, one that really stood out from the others for me. I had such a strong emotional reaction to the movie, both times I saw it, that I wasn't even able to tell whether I liked it or not. Maybe this gives me my answer.

But somewhere along the way, an insight came to me about why Alexander is such a hard person to do a successful novel or movie about -- in addition to the difficulty of fitting in the staggering number of events in his life.

Nowadays we aren't just satisfied to hear tales of a hero, unlike people in the various eras in which Alexander romances were popular. We want to know him, relate to him, understand him, get inside him. We demand to know a character's motivations; we feel he can't be real without plausible ones. And there just isn't enough known about Alexander to do that. His motivations are so hard to make out from the sources that even the academics debate them -- not even the nuances, but the essence.

So you get modern authors and directors groping, and trying to apply 20th-century psychology to the sources, as Stone did; or only showing one side of him, as Pressfield did, or simply (and perhaps most wisely, since it seemed to work the best) throwing in the towel and viewing him as an alien or stranger through the eyes of others, as Renault did. And he's a cypher even if they try to explain him, because (as with everything else about Alexander) there's some crucial piece of information missing.

So what to do? If you want to do Alexander from the inside, you have to supply that missing factor out of the whole cloth, as it were. Invent it. And most people don't want to do that, with a real historical figure. Because if you come up with something sufficiently severe to produce such an extreme personality, readers are likely to find it unbelievable. Stone had the nerve, nervy guy that he is -- Medusa Mom!! -- but the consensus seems to be that it didn't work.

So it's a quandary. I have my own solution to it, but I can't say I'm satisfied with it, as of yet. I recently read a crucial scene to a group of writers I'm friends with, and the reaction just wasn't what I wanted it to be... <sigh>

Cheers,
Karen
Post Reply