The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent

Sword and Sandal movie updates

<< < (4/8) > >>

delalluvia:

--- Quote from: Mikaela on July 09, 2009, 01:03:26 pm ---Oh my, Del, you actually liked Alexander?
--- End quote ---

Loved it.


--- Quote ---When I went to see it, I'd read numerous reviews so I knew what others thought (not good). I fully expected to defy them - I so much *wanted* to like it! But I had to agree it was bad. Everything from the strange way the narrative was cut together, the incomprehensible never-ending battle scenes
--- End quote ---

I remember reading this as a criticism as well.  The movie was nearly 3 hours long.  How many battle scenes were there? 

2.  Only 2.

As for incomprehensible, well, Oliver Stone has seen and experienced real combat.  You're not going to get a clear, clean-cut, easy to figure out, Game-boy battle scene out of him.


--- Quote ---the boring voice-overs
--- End quote ---

Which were necessary to explain the massive jumps in time.  Like you said in your post, the story of Alexander is too big.


--- Quote ---ancient titles and place names without any explanations
--- End quote ---

Who is going to stop and explain them?  You already don't like the voice-over.  The homosexuality was vaguely hinted at to be sure, a major failing IMO as well. 


--- Quote ---the ludicrous Alexander/Roxane fighting/mating sequence
--- End quote ---

I thought the sex scene was funny as well, but it was meant to show Alexander's subconscious Oedipus complex.  Roxanne resembles his mother.


--- Quote ---And most of all, I didn't understand what Stone thought about the person Alexander.
--- End quote ---

Really?  I thought it was clear.  So clear he was all but hitting the audience over the head with it.  He thought Alexander had such an abusive childhood, torn between two ambitious competing vicious cut-throat parents (his beloved, protective mother telling him as a young boy that if you trust someone, they will turn on you, his idolized father threatening him with death then turning around in the next sentence and cheerfully saying how much he missed him) that he basically went out and conquered to get away from it.  IOW he was running.


--- Quote ---I didn't understand what he *wanted* with the film. What was he trying to convey?
--- End quote ---

It was a character study of one man done against a massive world-stage backdrop.


--- Quote ---So IMO it would have to be either the life story of someone more on the fringes of the big events (cough*Bagoas*cough)
--- End quote ---

Bagoas was a sheltered fucktoy.  IMO he wouldn't have had the brains to know what was going on.  For example, in The Persian Boy at the end of the book, Alexander is parading his new generation of youthful soldiers in the main stadia of Babylon for games.  They are a racial mixture of Eastern troops trained in Western fashion, but dedicated in the Eastern fashion only to Alexander.  This is a huge socio-political act by Alexander with far-reaching and possibly deadly ramifications.  How does Bagoas react?  He thinks the boys look very pretty.  ::)  I would choose someone more like one of Alexander's generals or one of Alexander's youthful lieutenants.  Someone a little bit more on the ball.


--- Quote ---Show Alexander indirectly thought he eyes of others.
--- End quote ---

But then you're not really showing who the moviemaker thinks Alexander is.  You're getting it more like 3rd hand knowledge.

Mikaela:
Well, obviously all this is based on individual perception and preferences - likes/dislikes -  and so.... we won't agree on this one. I'm sorry. It must be irritating to like a film so much and have everyone else going on about how bad it was.  :-\

(I've seen it twice - one time on TV, to convince myself it was better than I remembered from the cinema. But it wasn't.)

A couple of comments anyhow, because it's an interesting topic IMO!


--- Quote from: delalluvia on July 09, 2009, 01:41:08 pm ---I remember reading this as a criticism as well.  The movie was nearly 3 hours long.  How many battle scenes were there? 

2.  Only 2.

As for incomprehensible, well, Oliver Stone has seen and experienced real combat.  You're not going to get a clear, clean-cut, easy to figure out, Game-boy battle scene out of him.
--- End quote ---

Yes, there were only 2, but boy - did they feel never-ending! Especially the first one. I felt the  movie beat me over the head with the milling confusion of battle and after I had gotten that, just continued doing it. It was boring. Whatever battles are, I doubt they are boring, so I'd say Stone failed to get his points across to me. 

Battles may be confusing as hell, but filmmakers have an obligation to make the confusion - and the battle as such - serve a point in the narrative. To make it relevant to Alexander's particular story. This IMO did a poor job of that. I just think they went overboard in special effects, and decided once they'd gone to all the trouble (and cost!!) that the battle scenes were staying in, whether or not they really had much of a structure and point to them.


--- Quote ---Which were necessary to explain the massive jumps in time.  Like you said in your post, the story of Alexander is too big.
--- End quote ---
Yes it surely is. I remember thinking at the time through that they used voice-overs where there should have been real scenes, and scenes where there could have used voice-overs. But it's too long since I saw the film and I can't give you examples now.


--- Quote ---Who is going to stop and explain them?  You already don't like the voice-over. 
--- End quote ---
I don't claim to be a film-maker, I only say what worked and din't work for me. They used titles such as "Satrap", and place names such as "Sogdia, Baktria", and didn't explain what and where that is. Maybe I should have remembered that, but I didn't. And IMO it detracted from the tale. I watched the film with subtitles - I sat there wishing the translator would have taken the time to check where Sogdia was and included in in an aside in the subtitles. But nope.


--- Quote ---The homosexuality was vaguely hinted at to be sure, a major failing IMO as well. 
--- End quote ---


I bet Colin Farrell and Jared Leto would have found it more realistic and just as easy to deal with if their characters had actually made out or gone to bed at least once, rather than those deep meaningful kohl-rimmed loooong looks.


--- Quote ---I thought the sex scene was funny as well, but it was meant to show Alexander's subconscious Oedipus complex.  Roxanne resembles his mother.
--- End quote ---
OK. I didn't get that. But it makes sense. The mating scene was embarrassing, IMO. But I admit I got distracted by the presence of Angelina Jolie, and that may have obscured the similarities between her and Roxane. 

From other readings about Alexander I got the impression that everyone was nagging him so much to marry and produce an heir, he finally married Roxane as a kind of warning as much as anything - "back off me, or you may get what you wished for but you'll regret you did wish for it." That may have coloured my impression of the scene. Roxane is an interesting character BTW.


--- Quote ---Really?  I thought it was clear.  So clear he was all but hitting the audience over the head with it.  He thought Alexander had such an abusive childhood, torn between two ambitious competing vicious cut-throat parents (his mother telling him as a young boy that if you trust someone, they will turn on you, his father threatening him with death then turning around in the next sentence and cheerfully saying how much he missed him) that he basically went out and conquered to get away from it.
--- End quote ---
That doesn't make sense to me. Maybe that's why I didn't get it. I thought it was about him trying to conquer the world to prove to himself and others that he was better than those dreadful parents had made him feel, but that he really always was just "running from himself" and his demons (courtesy of his parents, sure enough), and there was never far enough places to conquer to get away from that and to prove himself - to himself. That he conquered land to the ends of the known world and beyond and still could not reach a place of confidence and inner calm. But I thought it was poorly and haphazardly communicated. Though there were some scenes at the end, when Alexander starts looking driven and almost haunted, that almost broke through to me and made me "feel" him.


--- Quote ---Bagoas, IMO, was a sheltered fucktoy. 
--- End quote ---
And this makes him disqualified as a film subject why?  ;)


--- Quote ---IMO he wouldn't have had the brains to know what was going on.  For example, in The Persian Boy at the end of the book, Alexander is parading his new generation of youthful soldiers in the main stadia of Babylon for games.  They are a racial mixture of Eastern troops trained in Western fashion, but dedicated in the Eastern fashion only to Alexander.  This is a huge socio-political act by Alexander with far-reaching and possibly deadly ramifications.  How does Bagoas react?  He thinks the boys look very pretty.  ::) 
--- End quote ---

Hmmm.... I seem to recall that Bagoas in TPB is quite aware of the ramifications of Alexander's mixing customs and promoting people from various cultures and places, trying to create one bigger whole. But at the same time, MR would have had to remember who he was, and what nationality he was and have him act accordingly -  and to not present him as all-knowing, all-understanding or non-biased.

What TPB brings to the table is a human touch, someone looking at Alexander and loving him, not necessarily seeing the military strategies and conquering plans and all that, but just the extremely charismatic person and the mesmerizing and inspiring personality. And when all is said and done, that has to be important aspects of who Alexander was and how he achieved what he did. So I don't think that's a bad angle, though of course not the only possible one.

BUT I fully agree that a film portraying any one person on the fringes of Alexander's retinue would have to not look only through that one person's eye, but cast the net a little wider. That would be the same no matter which person we're talking about, I think. Generals, or Hephaistion included.


--- Quote ---I would choose someone more like one of Alexander's generals or one of Alexander's youthful lieutenants.  Someone a little bit more on the ball.
--- End quote ---
I agree that would work very well, too.


--- Quote ---But then you're not really showing who the moviemaker thinks Alexander is.  You're getting it more like 3rd hand knowledge.
--- End quote ---
Yes - but the moviemaker could still use that to get across much about how Alexander and his conquests impacted persons and peoples, and glimpses of Alexander though his words, deeds, etc. And that can convey much. But it is a stopgap measure. The full story would fill a whole ocean and there's only a pool available!

delalluvia:

--- Quote from: Mikaela on July 09, 2009, 02:38:13 pm ---Well, obviously all this is based on individual perception and preferences - likes/dislikes -  and so.... we won't agree on this one. I'm sorry. It must be irritating to like a film so much and have everyone else going on about how bad it was.  :-\

(I've seen it twice - one time on TV, to convince myself it was better than I remembered from the cinema. But it wasn't.)
--- End quote ---


Heh, I never convince anyone how good it is who doesn't like it, but I keep trying.  ;D


--- Quote ---Yes, there were only 2, but boy - did they feel never-ending! Especially the first one. I felt the  movie beat me over the head with the milling confusion of battle and after I had gotten that, just continued doing it. It was boring. Whatever battles are, I doubt they are boring, so I'd say Stone failed to get his points across to me.
--- End quote ---

Movies are so subjective.  You thought them boring, I was thrilled and actually get goosebumps every time I watch them.  Yeah, Oliver is pretty adamant about showing the confusion of battle, he's not going to clean them up or make them easier for anyone.   What would be the point of that?


--- Quote ---Battles may be confusing as hell, but filmmakers have an obligation to make the confusion - and the battle as such - serve a point in the narrative. To make it relevant to Alexander's particular story. This IMO did a poor job of that. I just think they went overboard in special effects, and decided once they'd gone to all the trouble (and cost!!) that the battle scenes were staying in, whether or not they really had much of a structure and point to them.
--- End quote ---

Again, movies are so subjective, I thought the battles made Oliver's points about Alexander's life quite clearly and served extremely well as punctuation points to Alexander's journey.  And I have several historical books about Alexander and the first battle is pretty much what historians believe actually happened, and the battle is called strategic genius on Alexander's part, so it's pretty funny that you think the battle didn't have much structure. 


--- Quote --- I don't claim to be a film-maker, I only say what worked and din't work for me. They used titles such as "Satrap", and place names such as "Sogdia, Baktria", and didn't explain what and where that is. Maybe I should have remembered that, but I didn't. And IMO it detracted from the tale. I watched the film with subtitles - I sat there wishing the translator would have taken the time to check where Sogdia was and included in in an aside in the subtitles. But nope.
--- End quote ---

Hmmm, well, the narrator - shown as an old man, Anthony Hopkins in the film, - actually had a map on the wall.  I'm no expert in geography myself, but I think most people know that Alexander conquered the Persian empire and occupied Babylon - which most everyone knows was in Iraq - and that he eventually reached India.  So I think it's just a matter of deductive reasoning and knowing what is between Iraq and and India to give you some sort of reference point to imagine where Sogdia, Baktria might have been.
 

--- Quote ---I bet Colin Farrell and Jared Leto would have found it more realistic and just as easy to deal with if their characters had actually made out or gone to bed at least once, rather than those deep meaningful kohl-rimmed loooong looks.
--- End quote ---

But they were such luscious, deep, meaningful, longing looks.  ;D
 

--- Quote ---OK. I didn't get that. But it makes sense. The mating scene was embarrassing, IMO. But I admit I got distracted by the presence of Angelina Jolie, and that may have obscured the similarities between her and Roxane.
--- End quote ---

The similarities were astounding and there were tattooed snakes all over Roxanne's body.  She was a vicious thing and so was Alexander's mother.  I loved Angelina's portrayal of Olympias.  She was soooooooo scary.  She came across as the type of mother who would make even the greatest conqueror in history run for the hills. 
 

--- Quote ---I thought it was about him trying to conquer the world to prove to himself and others that he was better than those dreadful parents had made him feel, but that he really always was just "running from himself" and his demons (courtesy of his parents, sure enough), and there was never far enough places to conquer to get away from that and to prove himself - to himself.
--- End quote ---

You weren't wrong.  It was that too.  Throughout the movie, all Alexander hears is how good his father was and how his father would be proud and his father is watching over him and blah blah blah until Alexander is ready to kill someone.  Here he is the greatest conqueror the known world has ever seen and all anyone can do is remind him of his father.  So when he gets fed up and finally toots his own horn, just to have his father thrown in his face yet again, he actually does kill someone.


--- Quote ---What TPB brings to the table is a human touch, someone looking at Alexander and loving him, not necessarily seeing the military strategies and conquering plans and all that, but just the extremely charismatic person and the mesmerizing and inspiring personality. And when all is said and done, that has to be important aspects of who Alexander was and how he achieved what he did. So I don't think that's a bad angle, though of course not the only possible one.
--- End quote ---


Well, I've been thinking about it, and Alexander has already been seen from the fringe in books with varying degrees of success.

From Bagoas' POV, which I think misses the important parts of Alexanders socio-political strategy - and - I realized Pressfield has already done this in his Alexander books - from the POV of a young lieutenant in Alexander's army, which also fails since obviously Alexander is not going to expose or confide anything really personal to an underling in his army, so what we basically need is a movie from Hephaestion's POV.

He had been with Alexander since childhood and no one knew him better.  Not only was he Alexander's lover and spouse-substitute, but a general in his army and an important - 2nd only to Alexander - vizier in his empire's government so he will have seen it all, except of course for Alexander going downhill after his death.  But that's easily portrayed from an outside character since we'll have already seen what had gone on within Alexander's head and heart from he who was most important to the man.

Kerry:
I too love the movie "Alexander." I won't rattle on about why, but suffice to say that I would probably think anything about Alexander to be worthwhile, for the simple reason that it is about Alexander.

IMHO Alexander could do no wrong (though he perhaps came close when he burned Persepolis). If I had lived in Alexander's day, I feel sure I would have been one of those men who would have literally followed him to the ends of the earth, without question.

I would like to see a more intimate movie made about Alexander. Something more like "a day in the life of . . . " from the perspective of someone within his inner circle.

Re Antinous, I too do not necessarily agree with the self-sacrifice hypothesis. I only raised it because I wanted to clarify that a "suicide" (as originally stated) is not necessarily the same as a ritualistic self-sacrifice.

And I would never agree that Hadrian had moved on to another, younger eromenos ("twink"). As with Alexander following the death of his beloved Hephaestion, Hadrian went into deep mourning following the death of Antinous. Certainly, that's not denying that both Alexander and Hadrian had other lovers, both male and female. They were, after all, men of their time. Which is not of our time. It is always a fatal flaw to judge any personage from antiquity by our own stilted Judaeo-Christian standards.


 

Front-Ranger:

--- Quote from: Kerry on July 09, 2009, 08:37:23 pm --- They were, after all, men of their time. Which is not of our time. It is always a fatal flaw to judge any personage from antiquity by our own stilted Judaeo-Christian standards.


--- End quote ---
I agree completely, Kerry! This discussion is making me want to get out my Alexander DVD and watch it again!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page