pothos.org

ruthaki wrote:To me it was certainly a lot better than that stupid movie they made years ago with Richard Burton where the sets were so phony and Burton far too old to play the part.

Not to mention that awful feathered helmet . . . it looked like a swan had died on the top of his head!

Sorry - couldn't resist the comment.

Best regards,

Hi, Ruthaki and Amyntoros.
You are absolutely right... and yet bad (or not-so-good) fiction can have disconcerting effects! I saw Robert Rossen's movie in 1956, when I was a child; Christmas holidays were beginning, I was full of expectation for some presents long awaited for, and on top of it all there was this movie about a man from an ancient world who died young. For reasons I can't explain I was much impressed; by sheer coincidence an aunt gave me as a Christmas present a life of Alexander for young readers (in the "adoring"style) , which I read countless times even though it must have been quite awful. Later my fascination with antiquity prompted me to choose classic studies, and to learn English as well, to be able to read the books I was interested in. Anyway when, not many years ago, I could catch the Rossen movie from the TV and record it, I was happy like a child!
To cut a long story short, I think that Lutka's friend has no reason to fear for Alexander studies, and that Alexander himself was wrong when he feared that bad literature could damage his fame; I think that fiction, at least, doesn't work that way. After all, Alexander has had more than his fair share of that, and yet scientific studies about him are flourishing more than ever. Now I end this "proustian" post with my best regards for all. Azara

HI Marcus, I am not sure what I said way back when about Steve, Manfredi, or any other author...I try to be kind first, but then later, sometimes will own up to a bias or prejudice of some kind. I agree with Ruthaki that Steven Pressfield is a very kind and thoughtful writer who does make contact with his readers. He has always been nice to me.

He has said somethings that made me think...and I notice small things alot...but overall, I like his book Gates of Fire the best of all that he has written. I like several of his earlier books, including the golfing story which was made into a movie. I think he writes as a screen writer, hoping that any book may be made into a film.

Steven wrote upfront in one of his books on Alexander and I believe that it is the first one that he mixes locations, dates, and players. I could agree that it is unnecessary for a movie to admit to the fact that he did not meet any of the women at the hanging gardens in Babylon, but had met them earlier, such as Sisygambis and her entourage. He deliberately misleads with the line, So this is what it is to be a king, as that is where he actually met Sisygambis in the first place. That is what I mean by twisting and turning. A disclaimer about historical accuracy would be appreciated for such things imo.

Want more? I don't think so. Parmenio could have been hit outdoors, but I always had the impression it was indoors. And I thought it ill advised for Alexander to be having a sexual encounter with Bagoas deliberately staged at the time of the Hit! That is also literary license gone amuck!

In the original movie version that I saw with Philip taking Alexander into the caves, he has dialogue deliberately poisoning Alexander the child against believing and trusting women. That is a real twist and turn that offended my ears! Plus the paintings inside the caves were the worst imaginable! Later, in the dvd version that I own he does delete the offensive words about how horrible women really are. I found that fascinating to note.

I honestly believe that Stone deliberately set out to sabotage his own film. Just can't figure out why!

The trouble with writing a fictionalized history of Alexander is that he is so large a character. Where do you start? Do you focus on his achievements or his weaknesses? How do you compress 10 of the most intense years in history to a 300 or 400 page book? I have Mary Renault's book and a collection of others. I've written my own, PATRIDA which you can find on the net, (the websites below will give you info). My approach was to make the story about someone else and have Alexander an incidental character. That way you can see how his rise unfolds but without trying to hard to psycho-analyze him. I've written a good book; the question for members of this forum and others who read it is, "Is Alexander portrayed well?" PATRIDA is a book that has Philip as a key character, someone who never gets enough credit. Any thoughts on that. I'd love to hear your opinion.

pankration wrote:PATRIDA is a book that has Philip as a key character, someone who never gets enough credit. Any thoughts on that. I'd love to hear your opinion.

I will read it. Subject to availability, of course.

The son had wide and tall shoulders from which to view the world. I find Philip -- and his times -- far more interesting. As I do the Diadochoi.

Then again, though, that's me.

jan wrote:I honestly believe that Stone deliberately set out to sabotage his own film. Just can't figure out why!

Pish!

Marcus Hail.

Dont you think things get cocked up by peoiple trying to be too clever. I dont know if you have seen the BBC series on Robin Hood. I really looked foreward to a good old swash buckle with a story we can all mostly reckognise.

I saw it once and its totall bollocks. Robin looks like a kid from the early Take that. Not much oldr than 18 and hes supposed to have done 5 years in the holy Land. Robin Hood is famous for the English long Bow. Like Laurel And Hardy .

Well this jokers carrying an Asian Recurve bow. He wont kill the Sherif Even though he thinks nothing of killing anyone. I just wonder really how anyone can cock up a story like this. The Licence Fee money could have made something better.

Maybe on a grander Scale Stone fell into this trap of trying to be Clever and making a mess of it?

Similar with Chefs particulaly on TV with there So Called Twists on Classics. AS Ramsay said of Kitchen Nightmares" Keep Cooking simple and leave out the stupid Twists"

Kenny

Hi Kenny,

jasonxx wrote:Dont you think things get cocked up by peoiple trying to be too clever. I dont know if you have seen the BBC series on Robin Hood. I really looked foreward to a good old swash buckle with a story we can all mostly reckognise.

I saw it once and its totall bollocks. Robin looks like a kid from the early Take that. Not much oldr than 18 and hes supposed to have done 5 years in the holy Land. Robin Hood is famous for the English long Bow. Like Laurel And Hardy .

Well this jokers carrying an Asian Recurve bow. He wont kill the Sherif Even though he thinks nothing of killing anyone. I just wonder really how anyone can cock up a story like this. The Licence Fee money could have made something better.

Well, I'm not going to make any more comment about the Alexander film.

However, I enjoyed your post on Robin Hood. Yes, I have been mightily disappointed - I don't understand why they feel the need to make it "more contemporary", because all they do is dumb it down and make it rather rubbish. I have continued watching it, and I have to say I am enjoying it generally - although there are times when I want to hurl the TV out of the window.

We'll have to discuss my views on the new Doctor Who, and its new spin-off, Torchwood, on a different forum ... they are hardly Alexandrian!

I don't watch chefs' shows - obviously I can imagine if you have more interest, given your profession.

ATB

Cant comment on Dr Who or Torchwood. Sci Fi Aint My cup of Tea. My wifes big fan and gets pissed when I ask How Daleks Get upstairs. But the new ones seem to fly.

However I argued with my son That Alexander could take on the Dr With his sword against the Doctors Key. My wife gets really annoyed at me rubbishing Sci Fi in favour of Historical Alexander.

My 7 year old son is convinced Alexander would take out the Doctor and those silly little Dustbins saying Exterminate.

Kenny

Hello everyone! I'm brand new here and fairly new to an interest in Alexander (begun by Mary Renault as opposed to Oliver Stone!)

I missed the film when it came out but have since watched and enjoyed it; however I think being ignorant of the facts makes it infinitely more enjoyable as I thought Troy was terrible, having had some prior knowledge about the events it covered.

Hopefully I am proof that fiction about Alexander can encourage a more scholarly interest in him and his times as I am now hungrily collecting information about anything to do with him. Any recommendations on what to read are welcome!

I also found it amusing that the new BBC Robin Hood series had come up on this thread - when I heard it was being made I had high hopes for exciting teatime viewings! However, I was warned off it before it aired when I heard who was playing Robin - I was at school with him and therefore knew he was entirely unsuitable for the role!

Jane

Hi Jane,

First welcome,

I thought Troy was terrible

Did you really think so? I bet that if we started off another thread similar to Amyntoros' post about Stone's film but with regards to Troy the thread would be 30 as opposed to 3 pages long. It has to go into the Guinness book of world records for the film with the most historical inaccuraciesof all time.(Stone's piece comes in a close second)

Achilles' funeral pyre within the walls of Troy? After Troy had been taken? I think not. Yet the overall effect was for me at least more enjoyable + I liked the sword combats which I thought were pretty well neat.


And, I am sure you are right that fiction does encourage more serious and scholarly endeavours. Renault however is a rather special exception- few and far between.
There is of course the Manfredi trilogy but it isn't Shakespeare.

I think that an excellent overview of Alexander for me at the moment is Peter Green's book- Alexander of Macedon- although he does tend to take a bleak look on Alexander's moral integrity. I am sure that you will have "LOADS" of fun discovering Alexander- I sure did. Enjoy

Best regards,
Dean

dean wrote: It has to go into the Guinness book of world records for the film with the most historical inaccuraciesof all time.(Stone's piece comes in a close second)

I know I'm being very pedantic here, Dean, but ... how can there be "historical" inaccuracies in a film that's based on myth?

Anyway, as the Greeks and the Romans spent hundreds of years telling the story in different ways, with different details and contradictory elements, I really do think that one has to give Troy a lot more licence than many people currently give it.

ATB

I really do think that one has to give Troy a lot more licence than many people currently give it.

I enjoyed Troy.Although it had inaccuracies, i liked the film.

I don't live in England but I sure would like to see the story of Robin Hood. As for Alexander what can I add that hasn't been said.Compared to a lot of other "historical" and "biographical" films, Stone's is practically a doctoral thesis. I've commented on the abysmal portrayal of Alexander and the rest of you have done a great job identifying the "mistakes". To me it's still historical fiction and liberties are going to be taken. I can't understand how none of Alexander's seiges did not make the screen. The way he brought down cities defined the art for a thousand years not to mention the engineering and machines he used to do it with.

pankration wrote:Compared to a lot of other "historical" and "biographical" films, Stone's is practically a doctoral thesis.... To me it's still historical fiction and liberties are going to be taken.

Well, evidently it can't be both. I would have no disagreement with the "historical fiction" tag. Way too many liberties, in my opinion, were taken for the even the sloppiest biography.

pankration wrote: I can't understand how none of Alexander's seiges did not make the screen. The way he brought down cities defined the art for a thousand years not to mention the engineering and machines he used to do it with.

Given we had not enough time (in three hours) to avoid the artistic conflation of the Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela; this is no surprise at all. All explanatory arguments aside, the man's anabasis was book marked by these defining battles – his set pieces. It is understandable that Jhelum and Mallia were, for time and artistic reasons, conflated but I find the rolling of the other three into one unforgivable.

Philip and Alexander (or more to the point, their engineers) virtually re-invented siege warfare. Not that it was non existent before hand, simply that although Philip was very adept at fifth column warfare, when you have three or four sarissa points in the fire as he normally did, his patience did not always extend that far. Nikias he most certainly was not.

On the sieges themselves though, they don't always make for great film making. In this instance, they simply will not have done. As you say, this was "practically a doctoral thesis", which thesis will have been summed up in the nonsensical silliness of the Babylonian soliloquy about the liberation, freedom and integration of "these people" (the Asians – Persians and all) into the brotherhood of man.

Tyre was his most famous siege, but, I doubt that the slaughter of some 6,000 after the city was taken and the crucifixion of two thousand Tyreans (along with the selling into slavery of the rest) will have done much for the cultural/brotherhood of man thesis.