pothos.org

On February 28, Oliver Stone will release the 'final cut' edition to Alexander entitled Alexander Revisited. It claims to be 220 minutes long, with 45 minutes of "never before seen footage," and boasts a much more in depth look into his various relationships with friends and family.

Personally, I can not wait for this to come out. (I'm literally couting down the days) What are your thoughts on this release.

Check it out:
Alexander Revisited

Oh good! I just got a DVD player and was planning to buy the DVD but now I'll wait til this new one comes out. I have a collection of videos including the awful old Richard Burton Alexander movie, so I wanted this one for my collection. (I have seen the original Oliver Stone movie 3 times and am anxious to see the added cuts.)

I've already pre-ordered it at amazon. Stone says he has not only added new footage, but that he has changed the sequence of the film, and now it starts with the Battle of Gaugamela!! Let's see how it goes, I really want to watch it!!

Kisses, Beatriki

Hello,

with all due respect to Oliver Stone and his movie, how many times are they going to revisit it?(there still could be several more, Ruthaki, so I would hang on a month or two, just in case)

OK he made the film and that is it, so basically what he is selling is the same movie but with a new package. The same book just another cover or something like that...you know what I mean.

Well, anyway, good luck to him and enjoy the flick!!! (love this icon)
Best regards,
Dean

dean wrote:Hello,

with all due respect to Oliver Stone and his movie, how many times are they going to revisit it?(there still could be several more, Ruthaki, so I would hang on a month or two, just in case)

OK he made the film and that is it, so basically what he is selling is the same movie but with a new package. The same book just another cover or something like that...you know what I mean.

Well, anyway, good luck to him and enjoy the flick!!! (love this icon)
Best regards,
Dean

No, no, no, Dean, this is another movie, with 45 new minutes, and another sequence of events. As I said before, things are not put in the same way as the theatre movie.

Kisses, Beatriki

I liked the film and intended getting the DVD, but never got around to it. Then the director's cut came out and I thought, that's lucky. But I never got around to getting that one either and now the full, with everything included, version is coming out, so I'm thinking, that's lucky. And this time I WILL buy it!

Derek

The battle of Gaugamela would be a much better start than the existing one with Ptolemy blathering for 15 minutes. Maybe Stone cut that entirely; we can hope.

I know that in the original script, Francisco Bosch as Bagoas had a speaking part. So I expect we'll see more of him. And the more of him we see the happier I shall be. I'd be particularly happy to see more of him with more of Colin. Okay, okay, I know a lot of you guys are cringing right down to your manly parts... but think, it couldn't possibly be worse than that stupid wedding night scene...

Karen

Oliver has a Myspace site on the new cut at www.myspace.com/alexanderrevisited

It is said that there are 45 mins of extra footage and that this exhausts the material that was actually shot, so presumably all the rumoured expurgations to avoid upsetting Middle America (who were upset anyway) will manifest themselves

Best wishes,

Andrew

Oh dear Andrew. One suspects more exploration of the conqueror's homoerotic side.

The Americans will be flabbergasted!

Surely there can't be any more silly soliloquies such as that in Babylon foisted on us yet again?

Spare me....

Thanks, Andrew, for the link to myspace. I checked it out. Looks good! Jan

I watched the video on the myspace site, and from what Stone says there, you can see which criticisms he has accepted as valid: that the movie wasn't clear enough and that Alexander wasn't presented as strong enough. So he's changed it so it's linearly told, except that the battle of Gaugamela is at the start so as to show a stronger Alexander upfront.

He also talks about how there are no constraints on this one -- no studios, no critics, no audience even, "except ourselves" -- and how he's never had that freedom, but having done it this way now, he can go to his grave in good conscience. Tells you how much this project means to him -- and how he felt (as he said elsewhere) that he'd failed his hero.

We're making lots of fun, but I find it all sad, really.

Karen

karen wrote:
We're making lots of fun, but I find it all sad, really.

What do you find sad?

Wow! hang on a minute.

Beatriki, you dont have to quit because someone in a discussion has a different oppinion. Although i admitt that he put it somewhat raw.

But you made a mistake yourself.

and above all, leave Alexander alone (you have also insulted him, because he also had homosexual relationships, and I won't let anyone insult him, especially here, understand??)

Were you there to see if he had any homosexual relationships? No one knows if he had any, and i can bring you arguments to say that he didnt, as others can bring arguments to say that he did. But there are no facts in this case.

but leave us who want to enjoy the TRUE history alone

True history? Which is the true history?

I dissagree with you. We shall not learn from the ancients in this case if indeed what they did was engaging in homosexual relationships with teenagers, something which i debate.

A society so advanced in culture and philosophy and the understanding of ethos, could allow their teenagers to be prey for older men? Do you think that if that was what happened it is something we must learn from?

Specificly about Alexander, if he had any relationship of that kind with Hephaestion, then it is something that was between them. I am not against homoerotic relationships, nor am i homophobic. But even if we knew that something like this indeed happened, then still i believe that it shouldnt be presented in a movie in such way. But this is my oppinion. And it is a big discussion.

And that's where Kenny's oppinion comes in. A straight man that likes women does not like to see a homoerotic act on screen, where there is a man with a man. (on the contrary he may like to see woman with woman, but that's another story). This is not homophobia.

Kenny made his raw remarks, and you made your absolute statemenets. It's a discussion, relax.

jasonxx wrote:Deleted .

Raw is a polite word for it. Those Attic pottery vases must give you the straight up willies, Jasonxx.

Though I agree with the idea that there is no absolute history.

As for the film, I am looking forward to it very much. Want to see how much Stone has changed it

Efstathios wrote: Were you there to see if he had any homosexual relationships? No one knows if he had any, and i can bring you arguments to say that he didnt, as others can bring arguments to say that he did. But there are no facts in this case.

Hi Efstathios.

No, none of us were there. As with so many other aspects of history, especially Alexander given the "late" nature of the sources and their editing of the early sources (to suit) that they relied on, one has to infer as best one can. The mores of the time too were different.

Were Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion to have been homoerotic – and I believe it was, especially early teens/twenties – it may not have been anything so remarkable as to merit public discourse. The results of that relationship (favouritism, promotions etc) would be what might attract comment.

Xenophon, for instance, only mentions Agesilaos' sexual infatuation (crush??) with the beautiful son of a Persian noble so as to make an excusatory point about his hero. The sexual attraction itself was not remarkable but is mentioned to explain certain actions.

Efstathios wrote: A society so advanced in culture and philosophy and the understanding of ethos, could allow their teenagers to be prey for older men?

As I've written before, the Spartan Agoge actively encouraged the forming of sexual relationships between the young Homoioi and an older mess mate. And, whether intended or not, these relationships (and others) were not put aside. Again, this is not written about by the ancients in any morally comdemnatoryl sense. Quite the opposite in fact.

One might also infer that Thebes will have supported a reasonable "homosexual" population so as to enable it to maintain an elite comprised of 150 homosexual couples in the Sacred Band. Again, the nature of the relationship is given no moral evaluation by Xenophon. He simply remarks that one reason (among others: they must have been top soldiers) they were chosen for this unit was that as lovers they will have fought to preserve their partner.

By the way mate, how was the RSW?