pothos.org

I have a request regarding Stone's Alexander movie which should be tons of fun for anyone who is still annoyed by historical inaccuracies in the film, even though it has oft been argued that the movie is a fictionalized account of Alexander's life.

A wonderful professor who teaches a class on Alexander - the historical Alexander, of course - has asked me if I could summarize the historical inaccuracies or interpretive misrepresentations in the film; i.e., the most valid historical criticisms.

Those of us who liked the movie have frequently had to defend it from complaints of historical inaccuracy, so here's your chance to let fly with all your comments and complaints about the "history" therein. Well ... not all of your criticisms, please. I wouldn't want this thread to become a continuation of the argument about Alexander's sexuality! Oh, and those of you who did like the movie, please feel free to participate also because I'm not looking for a debate on the pros and cons of the film - I just want to gather the facts.

And I promise I won't pretend that I did all the research myself. . .

Best regards,

Hi Only a couple but im sure there are more.

During the war cabinet. Prior to Gaugamela. Alexander tells Parmenio. Babylon is his new home and as yet had not even been there.

But a bigger one was the Final Hydaspes battle. We know the battle was in open country. Yet for some reason Stone put them in a jungle.

Kenny

Sorry Amyntas one more. The appearnnce and the involvement Stone gave Cassander with some important imput. Yet we have no evidence that he was any where near Alexander till Antipater sent him to poison him.

kenny

Hi,
some of the things that I recall,

With regards to Alexander selfless preocupation for his wounded after Gaugamela- the doctor's are trying to relieve the "lads" sufferng and one is mercifuly killed using a "nail" in the nape of the neck. Apparently Fox queriied this with Stone saying that such nails to the back of the neck when looking for a fast end to the pain was never heard of but Stone carried on his own sweet way and liked it.

The biggest (perhaps intentional for reasons of budget etc) were the linking of the battle of Hydaspes/ the death of Bucephalus and the Mallian arrow wound which happened according to Stone on the same day.

There was also at the beginning of the film a sequence where a passage was shown with different images of past heros- Achilles/Jason/ Prometheus etc all painted on the wall- and this of course is completely fictional(the images were similar to the ones seen in American caves of Buffalos etc.)

Cassander appears also to have gone on campaign from Asia Minor to the Hindu Kush when he was really at home with dad.

OOOh I could go on but anyway.... my primary students have exams and i have to do "teachers" things

Well, all the best
Dean

Clietus Killing Parmenio.

And the most rediculous and probably Farrels most embarresing scene as an Actor. The Wedding night love scene. Alexander roaring like a lion. I guess its like a guy dressing as batman and leaping from a wardrobe onto his wife.

Kenny

Kenny wrote,

Clietus Killing Parmenio.

And the most rediculous and probably Farrels most embarresing scene as an Actor. The Wedding night love scene. Alexander roaring like a lion. I guess its like a guy dressing as batman and leaping from a wardrobe onto his wife.

Not too sure about the batman bit, but it is true that in the film Cleitus is seen killing Parmenio along with Antigonus the one eyed totally incorrect historically and Robin Lane Fox does mention the inaccuracy openly in his interesting commentary of the film.

Another mistake is that Darius' family is captured in the film after Gaugamela and it is Darius' wife, not Sisygambis who greets Alexander with the famous greeting but to Hephaestion - Alexander answers of course that he is Alexander too.

Bets wishes,
Dean

G'day Amytoros!

This could become as firm an addiction as my son's Game Cube. Gotta get to the office so a quick couple of major annoyances.

Antigonus did not campaign after the Granicus. Just on which, what became of the Granicus? Of Issus? Persia did not fall in one battle.

amyntoros wrote:I have a request regarding Stone's Alexander movie which should be tons of fun for anyone who is still annoyed by historical inaccuracies in the film, even though it has oft been argued that the movie is a fictionalized account of Alexander's life.

A wonderful professor who teaches a class on Alexander - the historical Alexander, of course - has asked me if I could summarize the historical inaccuracies or interpretive misrepresentations in the film; i.e., the most valid historical criticisms.

For me, one of the most glaring was the "map of the world" that was mosaiced onto the wall of Ptolemy's palace in Alexandria. For a start, it had "mare mediterraneum" (in Latin, that is, when it should have been in Greek); but this was compounded by that fact that the Mediterranean was not called that until Isidore of Seville in the 5th (6th?) century AD - the Greeks (and the Romans) called it "Our sea" ... so even if putting the writing in Latin had been OK, it should have been "Mare nostrum".

Not as glaring, and probably less obvious to many people, was the appearance of the famous "ram in thicket" in Olympias' bedroom. As that particular figurine was Sumerian, and buried in the royal tombs at Ur in the 3rd millennium BC, they shouldn't really have had it there at all.

Saying "Babylon - Persia" was a bit irksome, too, I suppose.

There's three (or four, if you count the map as two separate ones) ... and I'm still pro- the film.

ATB

The whole film is a historical inaccuracy.

The only bit i enjoyed was the opening score by Papathanasiou which is magnificent, and the last scene when Ptolemy looks at Alexander's bust, and thankfully it's a bust of the real Alexander and not Collin Farel.Also i liked Babylon.

What annoyed me is that Stone kept insisting that the film is historically accurate.None of his films are historically accurate.I remember "The doors". Another example of a film that he did it his way, and not as things happened.Total mixup of events.

Also, i didnt like some of the actors for the roles they had.Cleitus and some others were like pirates instead of Macedonian officers.Parmenion was ok.Hephaestion probably didnt have long hair as it can be seen in a bust.Jolie was nice for the role of Olympias, although the accent was totally off.I also liked Val Kilmer for Philip.He was good.

But Collin Farrel for Alexander, no.

Efstathios wrote: Also, i didnt like some of the actors for the roles they had.Cleitus and some others were like pirates instead of Macedonian soldiers.Parmenion was ok.Hephaestion didnt have long hair.Jolie was nice for the role of Olympias, although the accent was totally off.I also liked Val Kilmer for Philip.He was good.

The choice of actors isn't a case of "historical inaccuracy", though; are we sure that Hephaestion didn't have long hair?; well, if the Macedonians speak with Irish accents, then who's to say that Jolie's accent was "off"?

Come on guys, let's stick to what Amyntoros is actually asking for, and not let our prejudices get in the way of our own historical rigour!

ATB

And not including inaccuracies previously mentioned...

No elephants at Gaugamela when there actually were 15; first view of elephants at the Hydaspes instead. Alexander turning the army back due to the arrow wound (since it was at the wrong time.) Hephaistion dying in Babylon rather than Ekbatana. Roxane talking to Alexander as if she had a say in his military decisions. Alexander kissing Bagoas to the cheers of his underlings in Marakanda, same banquet in which he kills Kleitos, instead of... wherever it was where that really happened. Aristotle teaching Alexander & friends at Mieza among ruins -- the building would have been new, or at least newer!

Bet I'll think of more later. Where's Sikander? He could jump all over the costumes and horse trappings.

I can't imagine you want us to get into things that were left out, do you? You'd have to write a book.

Have fun with this,
Karen

marcus wrote:Come on guys, let's stick to what Amyntoros is actually asking for, and not let our prejudices get in the way of our own historical rigour!

Yes, not a little historical "rigour-mortis" hereabouts!

Actually, I took such a dislike to the film that I can't remember much of it! I shall have to watch it again. The only problem with that being my propensity to rumble throughout like a low volume rolling thunder as I rail against both the inaccuracies and the portrayal.

My wife finds it…”off-putting”. It appears that she shall be off put this weekend.

Cleitus did´nt save Alexander´s life in Gaugamela but in Granicus. It seems to me that Stone wanted to show us the most famous facts of Alexander´s life but did´nt care about who, where and why.

The most innacurate of the film for me is that Alexander is not showed as a cold great commander with his mind focused on war, but rather as a temperamental friend and lover.

Alexander is not showed as a cold great commander

Who says that Alexander was cold?

About Hephaestion, we only have a bust of him from the Roman period i think which is a copy.And it depicts him with short hair, but yes of course he could have longer hair at some point.

I think that so far we have covered almost every scene in the movie being historically inaccurate.How did Stone manage this?

Hi Efstathios

That ATG was a cold commander is my personal thought. How would he have won so many great battles without being so? I think that is necessary this virtue to be a great commander. Writers often describe him very calm and sleeping like a kid before battle.

I think that if he had been like Caracalla he had not even crossed Granicus, surely he had got killed by his soldiers like him.