alexander...the movie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

Agreed , but on second thought , maybe they knew that it is only a legend , ha ?

---

Right. I haven't seen the film and I don't know if I will bother, but it strikes me as odd that people demand realism from a film. That is about as unreal as demanding realism from a Total War game.

Films tell stories, and every story-teller knows that in order to tell a good story, no matter what it is about, you have to introduce artificial elements such as the age-old unity of time, place and action. Without an inner logic to the images portrayed, the characters presented, the words spoken, audiences will not 'believe' a film. That is why films can only be real at the cost of reality.

Take Saving Private Ryan, a movie praised for its uncompromising realism, at least in the opening scenes. Imagine watching that scene and somebody in the audience going: 'Hey, I know that guy. That's not Captain Miller, that's Tom Hanks from Hollywood!'

So sit back and reflect for a moment: by what criteria do you guys really judge a film's realism? :mellow:

Adrian, it's fine to make things into legends. But it's not fine when they make it into legends when they claim it's accurate.
edit: Rhoxana is far too dark... she should be white, at the most have black hair. She would have been Iranian, not... whatever she is.

Quote:

---

Rhoxana is far too dark... she should be white, at the most have black hair. She would have been Iranian, not... whatever she is.

---

Man I though she was UGLY. Especially in the nude scene. She didnt have breasts she had udders. ~D

I didn't think she was ugly... ~;)
She was just incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Adrian, it's fine to make things into legends. But it's not fine when they make it into legends when they claim it's accurate.

---

I don't mind what they claim. You are a thinking member of the audience, so what is your idea of accuracy? Is it in the stirrups/no stirrups details, in the psychology, the photography? Do you think Ben Hur is a bad film because the trumpeteer is wearing a watch? Does it bother you that Judah Ben Hur is really Charlton Heston?

Never seen Ben Hur.

But if they have stirrups, then they are idiots. It's not hard to ride without stirrups, and it's just foolish to have them in.
Adrian, if something is supposed to be history, I think it should be as close to history as possible. The soldiers should be as accurate as possible, the people should look like as close as we know that we did (in other words, Alexander not blonde, Rohxan as an Iranian, Persians as Iranians), it should be as close as possible to what we know because that is far more interesting than anyone could make up.
If they wanted to make a fantasy, they should do it! Don't even bother with Alexander, make some fantasy! I love Lord of the Rings, despite the fact that it's obviously not real, and there were some deviations from the book. But what was added could have been in the book.
Not so for most of these sort of movies.

What exactly do you mean by photography and physyology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Adrian, if something is supposed to be history, I think it should be as close to history as possible.

---

Steppe Merc, I want you to listen to yourself. Alexander was 33 when he died. Do you seriously want to see a film that lasts 33 years?

And speaking of Roxan -- is it the colour of teh actress' skin that is important, or is it her portrayal of emotion, conflict, personal chemistry?

No, I don't want to see a movie 33 years long. I'd like to see one that touched on the most important parts of those 33 years.

Quote:

---

And speaking of Roxan -- is it the colour of teh actress' skin that is important, or is it her portrayal of emotion, conflict, personal chemistry?

---

In a historical movie, I think it is important. Just as it is silly to have Alexander as a person of African descent, it is silly to have someone who was possiblly lighter than most Greeks as someone of Arabic descent.

Would a movie about the Civil War make any sense if Abraham Lincoln was black? Or if Robert E Lee was Asian?

Adrian, I know I may sound stupid. But if you want to make a movie about a famous person, why not make it right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Would a movie about the Civil War make any sense if Abraham Lincoln was black? Or if Robert E Lee was Asian?

---

Yes. It might make more sense than a tv series about the Civil War I saw some years ago -- you probably know the genre -- in which Lincoln wore the right beard and all the guns did 'pop' at the right moment, but the (amateur) acting was so stiff and anachronistic that I rolled off the couch laughing. On the other hand I have witnessed a Medea (Euripides) played by black African actors in Avignon many years ago and it was fantastic. Greeks were not black and their choruses did not dance to African rhythms, but apparently Medea is a black tragedy as much as white one and I was thoroughly impressed by that piece of theater.

Quote:

---

Adrian, I know I may sound stupid. But if you want to make a movie about a famous person, why not make it right?

---

What do you mean by 'realistic', 'accurate' or 'right'. Making films equals making compromises with reality as far as we know it.

I guess my sense of the 'reality' of a movie has more to do with the acting, psychology and photography than anything else. Movie audiences are aware that they are looking at a flat screen upon which an illusion of reality and spontaneity is created with the most artificial means you can think of. Creating 'reality' within those confines means creating scenes that look, sound and even smell right to the audience so that they are drawn out of themselves and sucked into that screen. The best (some would say the only) way to achieve that is by making the audience identify with one or more characters in the film. That is where psychology comes in. Without it, I don;t see a film, I see a bunch of actors running around amid props and studio lights. To me, no amount of historically correct elephants is going to compensate for one wrong smile of Alexander. And to me, no sagging breast is going to stand in the way of a good Roxan, because it is the very nature of love that it makes people blind to such imperfections. If you judge a film like Alexander by its pornographic content like Gawain does, you are going to be disappointed anyway.

[QUOTE=AdrianII] Do you think Ben Hur is a bad film because the trumpeteer is wearing a watch?


No way !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :jawdrop: please some proofs !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

No way !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :jawdrop: please some proofs !!

---

Oh pullease.. I know you're joking, but on the other hand this is exactly what I mean. People talk about Ben Hur as if it were the vehicle for that wrist watch and not the ground-breaking film that enthralled audiences the world over, saved a studio and made more than a few careers in show business. And do not imagine for a moment that it does not tackle the same issues thatAlexander touches upon. Here is a nice fragment I found about the famous Messala/Judah encounter:

In the disc's "Making of ..." documentary, Gore Vidal (who wrote the bulk of the screenplay) says that he suggested to [director] Wyler that the character's scenes together be written as "a lover's quarrel":

"Wyler said, 'What do you mean?' I said, could it be that the two boys had some kind of emotional relationship the first time around, and now the Roman wants to start up again and Ben-Hur doesn't — and doesn't get the point? Willie said, 'Gore, this is Ben-Hur. You can't do that to Ben-Hur.' I said, well, if you don't do something like that you won't have Ben-Hur. You'll have an emotiveless mess on your hands. And he said, 'Well ... you can't be overt.' I said, I'm not gonna be overt. There won't be one line. But I can write it in such a way that the audience is going to feel that there is something emotional between these two that is not stated, but that blows a fuse in Messala. That he is spurned. So it's a love scene gone wrong."

That is a good one .
Bty , did not heard of a man named Ben Hur at that period...accuracy... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

That is a good one .
Bty , did not heard of a man named Ben Hur at that period...accuracy... ~D

---

Well, there you go. There were Jews in Jerusalem at the time, we know quite a bit about them and that justifies the making of a historical movie about one of them, even though a Ben Hur did not exist as far as we know. He was a fictional character created by the writer Lew Wallace in 1880. So was Christ, whose birth and cruxificion are vividly portrayed in the book and (partly) in the movie. We know there were chariot races in those days and we know what they were probably like, and that justifies the recreation of one such race in the film Ben Hur, even though it never took place in the exact way that it was portrayed.

There is no fundamental difference between making up a character and making up things about a historic character. If you want to make a film about Alexander you have to fill in so many blanks and voids that you are practically making him up, too.

And some of the best historical movies are fictional. Master and Commander[ with Russell Crowe for instance is one of my favourites. It combines everything we know about naval warfare and frigate duels at the time with a good story and some superb acting, though I will readily admit that the plot is rather weak. But when you take a frigate as the main scene of action, this allows for the exact concentration in time, space and action I wrote earlier about. That concentration is required because it allows for identification and therefore the development of a gripping story.

Recreate Trafalgar in the same way and you get an impossible monster movie with lots of historically correct explosions but no sense of 'reality' at all because the intimacy of the characters is lacking.

On the other hand, if you recreate Trafalgar around a fictional character -- for instance around the experiences of a young bosun's mate on one of the ships -- you get a very real movie.

[QUOTE=AdrianII] Ben Hur did not exist as far as we know. He was a fictional character created by the writer Lew Wallace in 1880. So was Christ, whose birth and cruxificion are vividly portrayed in the book and (partly) in the movie.

One can say that the whole story of Jesus is fictional , wait , you have said it !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

One can say that the whole story of Jesus is fictional , wait , you have said it !!!!

---

So what? Burn me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

So what? Burn me.

---

Not me , dude , not me... ~D
As I have said , I don't belive in the story either ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

Not me , dude , not me... ~D
As I have said , I don't belive in the story either ~;)

---

But it is a bloody good story and it makes for bloody good movies! See, and that's my point.

Agreed ! Mel Gibson's ?

Quote:

---

And some of the best historical movies are fictional. Master and Commander[ with Russell Crowe for instance is one of my favourites. It combines everything we know about naval warfare and frigate duels at the time with a good story and some superb acting, though I will readily admit that the plot is rather weak. But when you take a frigate as the main scene of action, this allows for the exact concentration in, space and action I wrote earlier about. That concentration is required because it allows for identification and therefore the development of a gripping story.

---

I agree Master and Commander was excellent. I don't have problems with fictional peoples as long as they act as if they were really there. I mean, I could believe Russell Crowe was an English warship captain, in large parts due to how realstic it was. I couldn't believe Brad Pitt as Achilles, mainly because how he acted was nothing like Achilles could have acted, and how wrong it was for the period.

And I see what you are saying about the actor's looks not mattering as much as how they act. But they obviously chose Roxane because they thought "Oh, around Afghanistan, then she's an Arab", which is wrong. If they honestly thought that she was the best actress they could get, and all actresses that are white have black hair or possibely even brown are worse, than mabye I'd buy it. But I don't think so.
I can live with say an Australian playing an Englishman (Russel Crowe). But I would have a harder time buying him as an Englishman if he was from India.

In the end, I agree, good actors are key, making it feel real. But I think making it accurate and realistic would help, rather than hurt good actors. To me, it's sort of like CA's argument that they put in gameplay instead of historical accuracy. But historical accuracy is far more fun then anyone could make up.
Now I know that sometimes things need to be invented or streched. And that is fine, as long as feels like it could have happened in that time period. Again, Master and Commander felt like it could have happened. Not so with Troy or Alexander or King Arthur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

Agreed ! Mel Gibson's ?

---

Not i would stay more with the "Final Temptation of Christ" based on the book by a Greek actor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

And I see what you are saying about the actor's looks not mattering as much as how they act. But they obviously chose Roxane because they thought "Oh, around Afghanistan, then she's an Arab", which is wrong.

---

I realise I will have to see Alexander before I take this any further. I'll bow to your judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I agree Master and Commander was excellent. I don't have problems with fictional peoples as long as they act as if they were really there. I mean, I could believe Russell Crowe was an English warship captain, in large parts due to how realistic it was.

---

Totally agreed. I think Crowe is excellent in that movie. Unsurpassed, really; his character is far better than any (would-be) Hornblower I have ever seen.

One of the things I liked about his performance is that he obviously loved his ship. He was too old and too good as a commander to be in charge of a frigate. At his age and ability (and having fought under Nelson) he should have commanded a ship-of-the-line. But he wouldn't because he is in love with this particular ship and also because a frigate is his natural habitat. It shows, throughout the movie. He loves that frigate for its speed and versatility, the closeness of the water, the independent life with no superiors around to kick him about. And he is clearly fond of his hand-picked crew. There is no way that this man would do just as well if he commanded an amorphous mass of 800 men on a 68-gun SOL. He knows every nook and cranny of the old lady, he strokes her almost absent-mindedly, he even strokes the occasional gun and talks to it. Jees what a performance.

Oh, and the brilliant scenes with the junior officer who is being regarded as a 'Jonah' by the crew. He is a Jonah, you can feel there is something about that young man that makes him a profound danger to the entire ship. Even Crowe drops him after the first incident, no sentimentality, no gratuitous intimacy. Everybody, including the boy himself, knows that he has got to die, and die soon before he takes more people with him. Makes you sick to the bone if you think of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I couldn't believe Brad Pitt as Achilles

---

Nobody could. Ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Not i would stay more with the "Final Temptation of Christ" based on the book by a Greek actor.

---

Great movie indeed .
1 minute after it's screening in Israel (5 or 10 years ago) , thousands of Arab Christians went to the streets to "demonstrate" against the anti Christian Israeli government... ~D haaaaaaaaaaa...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Not i would stay more with the "Final Temptation of Christ" based on the book by a Greek actor.

---

Final Temptation of Christ was written by Nikos Kazantzakis, who was Greek, but not an actor. He was an author, one of the most important authors of m odern Greece. ~:) :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advo-san

Final Temptation of Christ was written by Nikos Kazantzakis, who was Greek, but not an actor. He was an author, one of the most important authors of m odern Greece. ~:) :book:

---

And the author of Zorba, the story of another movie. I visited his grave high up on the huge walls of Herakleion, overlooking the fields of the football club where he went every Sunday. I believe he was also a philosopher, right? I remember seeing some essays by Kazantzakis on Socrates and Heidegger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I realise I will have to see Alexander before I take this any further. I'll bow to your judgment.Totally agreed. I think Crowe is excellent in that movie. Unsurpassed, really; his character is far better than any (would-be) Hornblower I have ever seen.

---

Agreed. While Crowe did not fit the "physical type" of O'Brian's Lucky Jack Aubrey, he brilliantly brought the other aspects of that character to life -- and I don't blame Crowe for wanting to avoid the acquisition of extra weight. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

One of the things I liked about his performance is that he obviously loved his ship. He was too old and too good as a commander to be in charge of a frigate. At his age and ability (and having fought under Nelson) he should have commanded a ship-of-the-line. But he wouldn't because he is in love with this particular ship and also because a frigate is his natural habitat. It shows, throughout the movie.

---

Any of you out there who have not read the series this is taken from are missing one of life's little joys. Pat O'Brian was a "master and commander" of the sea yarn and his Aubrey and Maturin one of, if not the, best "buddy" teams in literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

There is no way that this man would do just as well if he commanded an amorphous mass of 800 men on a 68-gun SOL.

---

To begin with, England had -- as far as I can recall -- only 1 68-gunner, Monarca, acquired from the Dutch at one point. Most Napoleonic era Brit SOL's were of 74 guns, with a few 64's and the odd 50.

A crew of 800 was a rare thing in the English Navy. Even Nelson's 100-gun flagship at Trafalgar was crewed by only 820 -- including her complement of 140-odd marines. Moreover Nelson, unlike most, was able to get a lot of volunteers and his flagships did not suffer the crew shortages which other ships suffered. The "ideal" complement of a 68 would be several hundreds of people, but ideal complements were virtually non-existent. The close familiarity evidenced by Aubrey for his crew would have been more difficult with a group of 570 or so, but not impossible. Cruises often lasted years, giving them plenty of time to know one another.

Seamus

Well, I finally got to see Alexander recently. I really liked the sense of place and the effort gone into bringing the period to life, excellent work there. What bugged me was the extreme selectiveness of the makers in chosing what to include in the movie; basically they ended up with a couple of episodes from Alexander's life recreated in detail, and a lot of equally important sequences passed over. The most notable of these was Philip's murder and Alexander's subsequent conquest of Greece. What was in the movie was quite good alot of the time (though some of the acting was rather poor), but it ended up feeling very patchy and incomplete. Certainly it shows that a case can be made for making this kind of film in a series rather than cramming stuff into one movie; either that, or dramatically change events or perspective to make the story more suitable for cinema, like in Gladiator.

Seamus Fermanagh, I agree, the books are quite good, though I don't think I want to read all of them.

Adrian, I think you and I agree more than we disagree, when it comes down to it. We both think acting is extremely important, and sense of place. But I just think that a better movie would result in not just having excellent actors, but having realism and as much accuracy as possible. Because, at least to me, when I see say a stirrup in the BCs, I lose the sence of realism, and get pissed. And we both agree that having a fictional character, as long as it acts like it could have been in that time period, is good.
Or am I reaching here? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

And we both agree that having a fictional character, as long as it acts like it could have been in that time period, is good.
Or am I reaching here? ~;)

---

You've reached me! ~;)
Yes indeed, and I think fictional characters are often more real than real characters. After what you and I wrote above, I think I can safely make such a statement without being accused of wordplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

To begin with, England had -- as far as I can recall -- only 1 68-gunner, Monarca, acquired from the Dutch at one point. Most Napoleonic era Brit SOL's were of 74 guns, with a few 64's and the odd 50.

A crew of 800 was a rare thing in the English Navy. Even Nelson's 100-gun flagship at Trafalgar was crewed by only 820 -- including her complement of 140-odd marines. Moreover Nelson, unlike most, was able to get a lot of volunteers and his flagships did not suffer the crew shortages which other ships suffered. The "ideal" complement of a 68 would be several hundreds of people, but ideal complements were virtually non-existent. The close familiarity evidenced by Aubrey for his crew would have been more difficult with a group of 570 or so, but not impossible. Cruises often lasted years, giving them plenty of time to know one another.

Seamus

---

I could shoot some holes in your hull, but my mistake about the 68 guns is unforgivable. Of course the workhorse of the British Navy was the 74-gun ship-of-the-line.
:bow:

[QUOTE=AdrianII]... I think fictional characters are often more real than real characters...

Why using fictional characters when you have so many real and amazing characters to do movies about them ?
Just think of Herod the great , a real story that no writer could write . the reality is more interesting and more intriguing than any fiction (imho) .