A review of 'Responses to Oliver Stone's Alexander'
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:45 am
I remember Alexias asked for a review of this book when I'd finished it, and it may be that others might like one too, so here it is.
This review has also been posted at 'Alexander's Army'.
Fiona
Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander : film, history and cultural studies, edited by Paul Cartledge and Fiona Rose Greenland, University of Wisconsin Press, 2010
A Review
In some ways, it doesn’t matter if this book is good or not; the mere fact that it exists is a tribute to its subject, and is, I hope, the beginning of a process of re-assessment that will end in this astonishing film gaining the reputation it deserves. What other film, popularly tarnished with the epithet ‘box-office failure’, has within a decade been the subject of a profound and scholarly review by no fewer than thirteen academic specialists?
Its reputation, sadly, is in no doubt. Whether that reputation was deserved is far more doubtful. True, it failed to meet expectations in the USA and in the UK, but the film-watching world is bigger than the English-speaking world, and Oliver Stone mentions nine language areas where it succeeded very well. The book considers in great depth why the film failed to meet the expectations of the cinema-going public in some countries, and it’s sad to realise that many of the reasons had little to do with the film itself, and more to do with cultural prejudices and unrealistic expectations.
What is consistently heartening, from writer after writer, is their fairness. Weaknesses are identified, no question, but with precision and courtesy, backed up with real knowledge, that would leave even the film’s greatest fan pursing her lips and muttering, “Well, yes, that’s a fair point”. After the superficiality, rudeness and pettiness of much press comment at the time of the film’s release, even criticisms, phrased as well as this, can be soothing.
And it’s not all criticism – by no means. Credit is given where it is due, and in no small measure. Many excellences are remarked upon, and this is where there is such great value in bringing together so many specialists. The reader can benefit from the thoughts of a professor of ancient history on the amount of Persian royal ideology seen in the portrayal of Alexander, but also from the insights, from an art historian, into Oliver Stone’s film-making to be gained from a consideration of Fellini’s Satyricon. It’s unlikely than a single author could have brought us both of those points, and this is just a single example of a richness that is spread out before us from start to finish.
After an introduction by the editors, the fourteen essays (the last being a response from Oliver Stone himself) are grouped into five sections. The first section, entitled ‘Stone’s Alexander’ gives us Joanna Paul’s thoughts on the place of Alexander in the cinematic epic tradition, and an analysis by Jon Solomon of the popular reception of Alexander.
The second section, ‘Precursors of Alexander’, gives us Robin Lane Fox talking about Alexander on stage, comparing the film with Rattigan’s play, and then Kim Shahabudin doing the same thing with Robert Rossen’s earlier film.
Part Three is called ‘Alexander’s Intimates: Sexuality and Gender’, and here we have Marilyn B Skinner on ancient Greek sexuality, Elizabeth D Carney on gender and sex stereotyping with special reference to Olympias, Monica Silveira Cyrino on gender stereotypes and Colin Farrell’s performance, and Jeanne Reames on Hephaestion.
Part Four is called ‘Alexander’s Dream: Macedonians and Foreigners’ with Thomas Harrison revisiting Tarn v. Badian and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones on the depiction of Persian women.
Part Five, ‘Ways of Viewing Alexander’, is an analysis of the use of myth in the film, by Verity Platt, then John F Cherry on the responses of museums to Alexander.
Finally, Oliver Stone responds to some of the precise points made, in his afterword.
There are omissions; readers whose primary interest in Alexander is military will find no analysis of battle scenes, and no-one quarrelling with the lack of elephants at Gaugamela, or the mix-and-match Indian battle. There is nothing much about the script. It would have been interesting to read the verdict of some writer of repute, and also the thoughts of a professional composer on Vangelis’ score.
However, such wishes are probably going beyond responses, and that is what the book is all about. As Paul Cartledge says in his introduction:
“All of these contributors, as was our intention, uses Alexander as a kind of muse – or, one might say, as an intellectual tinderbox that sparks discussion about its actors, costumes, storyline, scenery, sociopolitical setting, and place in cinematic and cinematographic history.”
I suspect that, in general, each reader will enjoy most those chapters which cover areas which are not his or her specialism. I certainly found the chapter called ‘The Cult of Hephaestion’ the most frustrating, and the one called ‘The Appearance of History’ the most illuminating, dealing as it did with aspects of film-making, Hollywood conventions and genre, with which I was less familiar. Each chapter is very well-written, no question; liveliness and tight argument are found throughout the book. Many of the writers are, however, a little careless in building a rapport with the reader. It’s because they often have to discuss what ‘the audience’ might have felt, thought, understood, etc, and they seem to have an image in their heads of a popcorn-swilling simpleton, forgetting that it is extremely likely that everyone reading their book was in the audience, and might take exception to this.
Every single audience member will have brought widely-differing levels of knowledge and experience to bear upon their response to the film, and those who write of ‘fans’ with an air of tolerance might be interested to know that vast numbers of the points made in these chapters have in fact been made on fan forums over the last five years. Without pointing the finger, there is a bit too much ‘academics this… audience that’, which smacks rather of ivory towers and condescension. However, when their learning brings such a rich feast as this, it would be unfair to complain too much about this small point.
That’s probably as far as it is fair to go in a review of the book as a whole, because the chapters are crammed with good stuff and each deserves a review of its own. But if you are interested enough in the film to have got this far through the review, then I guarantee that some points will have you cheering, and some will have you wanting to do a Dorothy Parker and ‘hurl aside with great force’. For some readers, no doubt, the points that make me cheer will be the ones that make you want to hurl, and vice versa – but I don’t think there was any chapter that provoked only one of those responses. That’s how even-handed it is – you’ll be cheering and hurling in every chapter alike.
In conclusion, I would say that if you liked the film, you’ll enjoy reading this book, and however many times you’ve seen the film, you might well find something you’d missed. I did, and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen it.
If you didn’t like the film, I still think you will find much of interest, simply because most people reading this will be history buffs, not film buffs, and the sheer depth of insight from the film writers into just what Oliver Stone was trying to do, might well show you some things from a different point of view.
The mythopoiesis goes on – this book is part of it, and so, with our discussions, fan-fiction writing and lack of indifference, are we.
This review has also been posted at 'Alexander's Army'.
Fiona
Responses to Oliver Stone’s Alexander : film, history and cultural studies, edited by Paul Cartledge and Fiona Rose Greenland, University of Wisconsin Press, 2010
A Review
In some ways, it doesn’t matter if this book is good or not; the mere fact that it exists is a tribute to its subject, and is, I hope, the beginning of a process of re-assessment that will end in this astonishing film gaining the reputation it deserves. What other film, popularly tarnished with the epithet ‘box-office failure’, has within a decade been the subject of a profound and scholarly review by no fewer than thirteen academic specialists?
Its reputation, sadly, is in no doubt. Whether that reputation was deserved is far more doubtful. True, it failed to meet expectations in the USA and in the UK, but the film-watching world is bigger than the English-speaking world, and Oliver Stone mentions nine language areas where it succeeded very well. The book considers in great depth why the film failed to meet the expectations of the cinema-going public in some countries, and it’s sad to realise that many of the reasons had little to do with the film itself, and more to do with cultural prejudices and unrealistic expectations.
What is consistently heartening, from writer after writer, is their fairness. Weaknesses are identified, no question, but with precision and courtesy, backed up with real knowledge, that would leave even the film’s greatest fan pursing her lips and muttering, “Well, yes, that’s a fair point”. After the superficiality, rudeness and pettiness of much press comment at the time of the film’s release, even criticisms, phrased as well as this, can be soothing.
And it’s not all criticism – by no means. Credit is given where it is due, and in no small measure. Many excellences are remarked upon, and this is where there is such great value in bringing together so many specialists. The reader can benefit from the thoughts of a professor of ancient history on the amount of Persian royal ideology seen in the portrayal of Alexander, but also from the insights, from an art historian, into Oliver Stone’s film-making to be gained from a consideration of Fellini’s Satyricon. It’s unlikely than a single author could have brought us both of those points, and this is just a single example of a richness that is spread out before us from start to finish.
After an introduction by the editors, the fourteen essays (the last being a response from Oliver Stone himself) are grouped into five sections. The first section, entitled ‘Stone’s Alexander’ gives us Joanna Paul’s thoughts on the place of Alexander in the cinematic epic tradition, and an analysis by Jon Solomon of the popular reception of Alexander.
The second section, ‘Precursors of Alexander’, gives us Robin Lane Fox talking about Alexander on stage, comparing the film with Rattigan’s play, and then Kim Shahabudin doing the same thing with Robert Rossen’s earlier film.
Part Three is called ‘Alexander’s Intimates: Sexuality and Gender’, and here we have Marilyn B Skinner on ancient Greek sexuality, Elizabeth D Carney on gender and sex stereotyping with special reference to Olympias, Monica Silveira Cyrino on gender stereotypes and Colin Farrell’s performance, and Jeanne Reames on Hephaestion.
Part Four is called ‘Alexander’s Dream: Macedonians and Foreigners’ with Thomas Harrison revisiting Tarn v. Badian and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones on the depiction of Persian women.
Part Five, ‘Ways of Viewing Alexander’, is an analysis of the use of myth in the film, by Verity Platt, then John F Cherry on the responses of museums to Alexander.
Finally, Oliver Stone responds to some of the precise points made, in his afterword.
There are omissions; readers whose primary interest in Alexander is military will find no analysis of battle scenes, and no-one quarrelling with the lack of elephants at Gaugamela, or the mix-and-match Indian battle. There is nothing much about the script. It would have been interesting to read the verdict of some writer of repute, and also the thoughts of a professional composer on Vangelis’ score.
However, such wishes are probably going beyond responses, and that is what the book is all about. As Paul Cartledge says in his introduction:
“All of these contributors, as was our intention, uses Alexander as a kind of muse – or, one might say, as an intellectual tinderbox that sparks discussion about its actors, costumes, storyline, scenery, sociopolitical setting, and place in cinematic and cinematographic history.”
I suspect that, in general, each reader will enjoy most those chapters which cover areas which are not his or her specialism. I certainly found the chapter called ‘The Cult of Hephaestion’ the most frustrating, and the one called ‘The Appearance of History’ the most illuminating, dealing as it did with aspects of film-making, Hollywood conventions and genre, with which I was less familiar. Each chapter is very well-written, no question; liveliness and tight argument are found throughout the book. Many of the writers are, however, a little careless in building a rapport with the reader. It’s because they often have to discuss what ‘the audience’ might have felt, thought, understood, etc, and they seem to have an image in their heads of a popcorn-swilling simpleton, forgetting that it is extremely likely that everyone reading their book was in the audience, and might take exception to this.
Every single audience member will have brought widely-differing levels of knowledge and experience to bear upon their response to the film, and those who write of ‘fans’ with an air of tolerance might be interested to know that vast numbers of the points made in these chapters have in fact been made on fan forums over the last five years. Without pointing the finger, there is a bit too much ‘academics this… audience that’, which smacks rather of ivory towers and condescension. However, when their learning brings such a rich feast as this, it would be unfair to complain too much about this small point.
That’s probably as far as it is fair to go in a review of the book as a whole, because the chapters are crammed with good stuff and each deserves a review of its own. But if you are interested enough in the film to have got this far through the review, then I guarantee that some points will have you cheering, and some will have you wanting to do a Dorothy Parker and ‘hurl aside with great force’. For some readers, no doubt, the points that make me cheer will be the ones that make you want to hurl, and vice versa – but I don’t think there was any chapter that provoked only one of those responses. That’s how even-handed it is – you’ll be cheering and hurling in every chapter alike.
In conclusion, I would say that if you liked the film, you’ll enjoy reading this book, and however many times you’ve seen the film, you might well find something you’d missed. I did, and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen it.
If you didn’t like the film, I still think you will find much of interest, simply because most people reading this will be history buffs, not film buffs, and the sheer depth of insight from the film writers into just what Oliver Stone was trying to do, might well show you some things from a different point of view.
The mythopoiesis goes on – this book is part of it, and so, with our discussions, fan-fiction writing and lack of indifference, are we.