Sword and Sandal movie updates

[Mikaela]

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. 

Oh, I'm sure the battle itself was as structured as all that - but the lengthy scenes in the movie didn't communicate that to me. At all. I'm beginning to feel foolish about that - you and Kerry are a convincing couple - but then I remember the opinions of all the reviewers and I take comfort in not being alone, at last.

I would hazard the opinion that possessing relatively detailed knowledge of Alexander's travels and conquests, the main men around him, and the important historical events, made the film much more interesting and understandable. Both you and Kerry seem to have considerable historic knowledge of the man and his times.

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.

Well, I did deduct they were't in the Americas.  The trouble with Alexander is that he conquered such an immense area that any named district or country could be on the plains of Iraq, the deserts of Arabia, or the mountains of Afghanistan. And if I remember correctly, Roxane herself was a Sogdian and that was......near Afghanistan? That country always spells trouble.

But I do think it's the responsibility of a filmmaker of movies like this to make it clearer to the movie's general audience what's going on and where it's going on. I know a sizeable percentage of Americans are unable to place current-day Iraq on a map of the world. Unfortunately I do think you are too optimistic in assuming most people know which areas Alexander conquered, where that was and even that Babylon=Iraq.
 

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.

 Hey, I didn't notice that about the tattooed snakes. As I said, I found the scene pretty embarrassing, I rather pitied the actors and that means I didn't look too closely at either of them. I think Rosario Dawson is a fine actress though. 
 

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.

Yes, I agree - that was one of the possibilities I suggested too (though I seemingly am unable to wrap my mind around the English version of Hephaestion's name and to spell it properly.) I'd like to see that.

But I'd like to see TPB filmed first and foremost. I have a huge, big soft spot for that book and its main characters together. And if I remember correctly, one of the few certain historical mentions of Bagoas is Alexander kissing him publicly after some competition, egged on by his men? 

Not that I think there will be another Alexander movie any time soon. 

To end on a positive note on the movie, one thing I liked about the film, was the scene where Alexander enters Babylon as conqueror. That was awesome. A scene where all those special effects were well worth it!

[Kerry]

*Hands Kerry a fan that - hopefully - would have been good enough for Alexander*

Thank you for the exquisite fan, Mikaela. I love it. 

[Kerry]

I too found the Alexander/Roxane sex scene somewhat embarrassing. but I think Oliver Stone was trying to portray  the widely held view in the Ancient Greek world, that men were for love and women were for making babies.  Sad but true. I think Stone beautifully portrayed the dignified, understated, deep love between Alexander and Hephaestion, as opposed to the coarse, raw sex experience by Alexander and Roxane.

The narrator of the film is Alexander's general, Ptolemy, played by Anthony Hopkins. Because Alexander did not name a successor (and his son was murdered), the empire was divided between his generals following his death. Ptolemy claimed Egypt and retired to Alexandria, where he became Pharaoh (Cleopatra is one of his descendants). I don't know the name of the actor who played the young Ptolemy in the film. He was the tall chap with the blond curly/frizzy hair.

Re the location of Alexander's world, unless I'm mistaken, a map of the empire appears full-screen, at the beginning of the film.

[Kerry]

I would hazard the opinion that possessing relatively detailed knowledge of Alexander's travels and conquests, the main men around him, and the important historical events, made the film much more interesting and understandable. Both you and Kerry seem to have considerable historic knowledge of the man and his times.
 

I recommend you read this wonderful book, Mikaela. I've read it many times over the years.

[Mikaela]

I too found the Alexander/Roxane sex scene somewhat embarrassing. but I think Oliver Stone was trying to portray  the widely held view in the Ancient Greek world, that men were for love and women were for making babies.  Sad but true. I think Stone beautifully portrayed the dignified, understated, deep love between Alexander and Hephaestion, as opposed to the coarse, raw sex experience by Alexander and Roxane.

"Widely held" views in the Greek world on this subject were widely held among men. Which means less than 50% can have held that view. One hopes women thought of themselves as slightly above mere moronic baby producing machines even if male-dominated society didn't allow them to reach their potential in so many ways.

I'm sorry, and this is not directed at you Kerry, but there are few things that annoy me more than modern historians and scolars discussing or presenting ancient Greece or Ancient Rome and speaking as if the male half of the population was the whole "real" population - and reducing women (50% of the population, except that so many women died in childbirth that AFAIK they represented less than 50% in adult age groups) to a small insignificant chapter of "special interest". Right next to that equally limited chapter about the condition for slaves. The Ancient Greek person wasn't by default a "he".

The ancient male attitude towards m/m relationships being far above m/f relationships is so misogynistic it makes me see red. It's a sad state of affairs that in societies where male homosexual relationships were approved of and even lauded this came only as the flip side of a coin that severely repressed women and denied them any sort of status, worth and equal terms.

Olympias seemed to consider herself more than a meek baby making machine, so one would think Alexander had some perspective on the matter, but no doubt he accepted and was a product of the prevailing attitude among upper class men and male philosophers at the time.

No wonder Roxane was spitting mad, being reduced to a "coarse raw sex experience".  So if that was what Stone was trying to convey, perhaps even that scene makes sense after all.

[Kerry]

I'm sorry, and this is not directed at you Kerry

No offense taken, Mikaela. We are all entitled to our own point of view and I respect your opinion entirely. And I agree with you. Um, that is, I agree with you from the perspective of a modern person viewing the ancient world through the eyes of someone from the 21st century. Alas, however, that does not change the facts. For example, I'm also not particularly pleased about the fact that the great and noble Ancient Greeks also kept slaves. I wish that wasn't the case. Alas, however, they did keep slaves and no matter how much I may wish they hadn't kept slaves, the fact is that they did. 

[delalluvia]

"Widely held" views in the Greek world on this subject were widely held among men. Which means less than 50% can have held that view. One hopes women thought of themselves as slightly above mere moronic baby producing machines even if male-dominated society didn't allow them to reach their potential in so many ways.

I'm sorry, and this is not directed at you Kerry, but there are few things that annoy me more than modern historians and scolars discussing or presenting ancient Greece or Ancient Rome and speaking as if the male half of the population was the whole "real" population - and reducing women (50% of the population, except that so many women died in childbirth that AFAIK they represented less than 50% in adult age groups) to a small insignificant chapter of "special interest". Right next to that equally limited chapter about the condition for slaves. The Ancient Greek person wasn't by default a "he".

The ancient male attitude towards m/m relationships being far above m/f relationships is so misogynistic it makes me see red. It's a sad state of affairs that in societies where male homosexual relationships were approved of and even lauded this came only as the flip side of a coin that severely repressed women and denied them any sort of status, worth and equal terms.

Olympias seemed to consider herself more than a meek baby making machine, so one would think Alexander had some perspective on the matter, but no doubt he accepted and was a product of the prevailing attitude among upper class men and male philosophers at the time.

No wonder Roxane was spitting mad, being reduced to a "coarse raw sex experience".  So if that was what Stone was trying to convey, perhaps even that scene makes sense after all.

I like your post Mikaela, but don't hold it against historians/scholars.  They can only use what information they have, and unfortunately what written records they do have from the ancient world were written by men.  There are next to no writings of women by women - a couple of poets here and there, and certainly nothing from slaves - so historians can only report the ancient world from the male perspective (though some ancient writers/philosophers do write of women speaking up with great spirit about the double-standards and other issues they faced either in fact or in literature, sometimes left-handedly but there you are).

Historians try to speculate on how the women and slaves probably might have acted and felt, but that's all they can do, speculate.

I'd like to think you're correct in that women such as Roxanne and Olympias come across time as harridans with bad reputations because yes, they considered themselves more than bargaining chips and baby machines and their inability to be anything other than a disposable commodity in the patriarchy they lived in manifested itself inwardly as ruthless behind-the-scenes scheming and outwardly as anger, contempt and hauteur.

And the men around them took that as "uppityness" and so wrote of them in the worst light possible.

Indeed, in the case of Alexander, in the end, both Roxanne and Olympias were fighting for the legitimate dynasty - Alexander's - against his former generals.

[delalluvia]

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

I never doubted their grief, but apparently - at least from this one author I'm currently re-reading - Hadrian was a bit of a drama queen when it came to love, loss and mourning.  I quote:

...with Antinous and [his new twink]...this most secretive of men and most cautious of Emperors declared and published his love in ways so extravagant  and unparalleled as to astonish...even in his poems and memorials to his favorite horses and dogs...and flamboyant mournings... there appears the same exaggerated need to express and embody his feelings in a manner bordering on histrionic.

As for Alexander and Hephaestion, well, I believe with my heart that Alexander's grief was real, but some historians say at least some of it was for show or dramatic effect - to solidify his belief - and that of his subjects - in himself as a hero in the legendary sense.  Alexander styled himself and believed himself descended from Achilles and per Homer: 

Achilles went wild in his grief over Patroclus' death
He lay on the body for days
He cut a lock of his hair in mourning
He presided over his beloved's funeral

Alexander went wild in his grief over Hephaestion's death
He lay on the body for some time
He hacked off all his hair and the tails of all the horses in Babylon, in mourning
He presided over a lavish funeral for his beloved

[Kerry]

I never doubted their grief, but apparently - at least from this one author I'm currently re-reading - Hadrian was a bit of a drama queen when it came to love, loss and mourning.  I quote:

...with Antinous and [his new twink]...this most secretive of men and most cautious of Emperors declared and published his love in ways so extravagant  and unparalleled as to astonish...even in his poems and memorials to his favorite horses and dogs...and flamboyant mournings... there appears the same exaggerated need to express and embody his feelings in a manner bordering on histrionic.

As for Alexander and Hephaestion, well, I believe with my heart that Alexander's grief was real, but some historians say at least some of it was for show or dramatic effect - to solidify his belief - and that of his subjects - in himself as a hero in the legendary sense.  Alexander styled himself and believed himself descended from Achilles and per Homer: 

Achilles went wild in his grief over Patroclus' death
He lay on the body for days
He cut a lock of his hair in mourning
He presided over his beloved's funeral

Alexander went wild in his grief over Hephaestion's death
He lay on the body for some time
He hacked off all his hair and the tails of all the horses in Babylon, in mourning
He presided over a lavish funeral for his beloved

Who is the author?

Which historians?

[delalluvia]

Who is the author?

Royston Lambert

Which historians?

Gag, you want me to go dig up every Alexander book and article and dissertation I've ever read?

Just a quickie search gives me Arrian and Plutarch mentioning the Illiad-style tributes.  I'd have to dig dieeper for the modern historians.