Alexander, the movie.

Sooo I would like to bring up a subject I've been thinking alot about (Rather, I've been thinking about what you other forum-users have been thinking about it, if that makes any sense). Namely the movie "Alexander"!

Now, this is a rather open question, but what do you guys actually think of the movie? From a historic perspective I wonder. I am not really "interested" in camera-angles etc. but the historical value of the movie.

I'll openly admit that I'm a fan of the movie but as for historical accuracy? I'm no expert so (sadly) I wouldn't know much about it. I do however think that many of the costumes (Military, mainly) and scenery looks great, and to me looks fairly historically accurate if, say, compared to EB and various artists impressions. Then again, I wouldn't know for sure, since while I do enjoy history and can easily absorb knowledge about it (EB has been great in this area, I think) I dont know all too much about it myself to draw any conclusions. I also notice that alot of pictures used in various areas in EB are taken from the movie "Alexander", I dont know, but this must mean that the set-pieces in the movie are somewhat good, right?

So, post your opinions!

post our opinions on historical accuracy, or judge it like a film? it is very hard to do both, but this movie are doing it very good. but the problem comes to what it should have included in the movie and not to make a good timeline for a movie and not a documentary. But I think many people think of it more as a documentary than a movie. What I like most about it is the battle scenes. They are fantastic, but too short :( even though they are very long. I think it is they who saves the film from being bad.

Personally i love it

Awful film. It takes real skill to make battles boring, yet they manage it.

I don't think that the battles are boring, especially Gaugamela. I think it's quite good and accurate.
Welcome back, Quintus Sertotius!

I really liked the battle of Gaugamela. It looked very Historical accurate, and very realistic. Especially the Phalanx.:2thumbsup:

I mostly want a historical perspective upon it, but both are welcome, should you feel inclined to post it.

I do not agree that the battle-scenes are boring, on the opposite, I find them really intense and good. I enjoy them more than other Hollywood battle scenes beacuse I think that they bring up more tactical aspects, such as morale, formations etc. That's just me though. I would also like to belive that they portray the battle of Gaugamela pretty accuratly, but yet again, I wouldn't know if that's the cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

I really liked the battle of Gaugamela. It looked very Historical accurate, and very realistic. Especially the Phalanx.:2thumbsup:

---

persians weren't that accurately depicted. you should know If you play wiht persian infantry in EB..:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Awful film. It takes real skill to make battles boring, yet they manage it.

---

I'll back you up on this one, QS. I too thought the film wasn't good, and that the battles were boring. I'm not looking for pop-culture style battles, but something that was mildly more entertaining would have been nice.

Making a long story short: The Persians were grossly misrepresented in a vast number of ways in the film. The battle-formations and army lineup (Or lack thereof; the army looked like an amorphous rabble of mixed infantry and horse), camelry vanguard, omission of elephantry, omission of Greek mercenaries, errors in uniforms (Or rather lack thereof in the movie; apparently the prop-makers thought of the kyrbasia to be too hard to produce...), armaments, gross under-representation of cavalry, over-representation of chariotry and archery, removal of Mazaeus, and the inclusion of a fictional chap, Pharnaces, the Yalla-screaming bedouin.

Finally, the tip of the ice-berg; Darius flees from the battle. The most complete form of "fuck you" a scholar such as Robin Lane Fox could ever accord to the contemporary Babylonian astronomical chronicles which points out the contrary. It is only in the Final Cut where we actually see a moon-eclipse take place, but almost no emphasis is given to the omen. Graeco-Macedonians fight for their homes, but the Persians are obviously slaves forced to do battle, and let's see what else we can throw upon the already steaming pile of shit of Nordicist allusions besides the fact that the Macedonians all speak with Irish accents or sport unusually flaxen hair... Oh, that's right...

...They turned Alexandros III Megas into a gigantic vagina, excuse my French. Is this the guy who conquered a worldly empire in less than twenty years? And speaking of miscasts, who's bright idea was it to put Rosario Dawson as a Bactrian girl? He couldn't, God forbid, pull out a map and say "Hey, how do Tadjik or Pashtun Afghan girls look like?", so he instead caters to a bunch of horny 14-year olds who wants to see some steamy loving between a girl of a mixed phenotypes and Colin "I ruined Miami Vice" Farrell who looks like a complete putz in a fake Fabio wig.

And finally, who's brilliant idea was it to paraphrase the character of Alexander into a three-hour feature film? Now Hollywood has turned Alexander into some blonde Western European spreading enlightenment to a barbaric Orient who, according to the film, have sex publically and disparagingly misunderstand Zoroastrian burial practices.

The movie was awful; not just in its selective historicity in props emphasizing favourable Graeco-Macedonian bias, but also in its outrightly false and faulty projection of Alexander the Great as an individual.

Lot of hate there TPC. Though I do see where you come from and can agree with much of what you say.

I just want to add that I THINK the part when Alexander speaks to the army at Gaugamela is more meant to be "Propaganda" from his side. I mean, I dont know if he spoke in reality, or what he said if he did, but if I were him I'd surely say something similar, or atleast something to make encourage the morale of my own men, and make them feel "hate" towards their enemy. They are after all there to kill them you know. Just a thought.

Surprised to see no hate against the Hefaistion-Alexander affair that seemed to be going on in the movie. Another thing I hate about it is that during the battle in India (Sorry, cant remember name/location) the movie make it seem like if Alexander lost the battle, and that was the turning point of his campaign. If I am correct, didn't he win the battle and subjugated the "Indians"?

The problem with the movie is consistency; I realize that the argument of "Ptolemy's point-of-view" has been raised, but it falters because the film intentionally transcends into events of which Ptolemy could possibly have no idea of, at least not as a witness. Alexander had at Granicus river alone no less than three attempts at his life, and these were not random Achaemenid troops, but these were officers and generals who cast themselves at the fray. Rhoesaces, Mithridates and Spithribates.

At the siege of Gaza, another even more vicious attempt at Alexander's life, a near-fatal wound, would highlight the duties of Batis, the governor of the area, and his Hector-like execution. The Persians, depicted as completely inept at warfare in the film, would therefore beg to differ, and as far as the battle of the Persian Gates are concerned, we find a counterpart to Leonidas' last stand against Xerxes' army at Thermopylae. If the Persians did not fight for their homes, then gosh, Ariobarzanes must certainly have enjoyed his slavery so much that he'd fight to the death to protect his satrapy. Alexander would not have been so great if he had met a mediocre enemy, non? The film's lack of consistency in projection of the unfolding events unfortunately lends little to no credulousness to the aforementioned "Greek point of view".

Speaking of Hephaistion, without a doubt Jared Leto's worst performance; the intentionally feminine body-language, and bizarre mannerisms is a gross misprojection of the concept of "eromenos", and the social dynamics contained therein. Their complex relationship, which no less helped to shape the personality of Alexander, was relegated purely as a homosexual diversion in open conflict with Alexander's wives. No mention of Barsine, or Sysigambis anywhere. Instead the focus was diverted to a quasi-incestuous interlude between Alexander and Olympias.

The battle of Hydaspes river... If Gaugamela made the Persians look like Bedouins from inner Arabia, then Hydaspes made the Indians look like primates (And that is not the first time the primate-allusion is made! When Alexander actually sees a few apes, the camera flicks over to a primitive-looking, almost Neanderthal "Indian" woman), fighting in the trees. It was almost as if it was Alexander's first time seeing elephants... Which he of course had seen at Gaugamela, but hey, if Oliver Stone can sweep "trivialities" under the rug, then why not this too?

By the way, I never knew Alexander and Hephaistion used to play dress-up as kids; especially with Alexander dressed up as a sheik. Yeah, the 501st thing we learned from this horrid film. I don't mind artistic liberties in films, but damn it, this is beyond stupid. Apparently Romans are great fighters, but by this time, Rome was just a city in a landscape otherwise dominated by the Etruscans and various other Italic tribes.

Finally, it's not hate. These are healthy, factually resounding observations on an ongoing dogmatic trend in projecting Graeco-Roman culture as a representative avatar for Western-European civilization in antiquity. The movie as new as it is, is a relic from outdated Victorian-age scholastics.

I did not mean "hate" as hate in the literal meaning, more like.. Criticism, wich is welcome and what I'm looking for. I dont want to sound disrespectful to you TPC, just so that we're on clear terms with each other.

Your criticism is welcome and appreciated, mainly beacuse I (think) I "know" that they are reasonable and well thought out.

i liked the movie in general.. the battlescenes were confusing, i didnt understand what was going on. It wasnt till i researched alexander's exploits myself that i knew what they were trying to convey happening. battle scenes should have a confusing element. not leave you completely clueless.

It's shit.
Shit, right?

The film was far too long, and some idiot thought having the most iconic battle completely obscured by clouds of dust would "improve" things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

persians weren't that accurately depicted. you should know If you play wiht persian infantry in EB..:book:

---

they couldnt make it look like he fought greeks, when the wide audience knows only that alexander was greek and fought persians.

but here the problem comes like some other *historical accurate* films and series, like for instance Rome tv series. what audience are they aiming for? people intrested in history? historical accurate, i mean the armour and every detail the rome series add that is historical accurate, but people still want asterix-rome

As I already mentioned in the "ancient warfare movies"-thread. I think there are very few good things about "Alexander". One being Val Kilmer als King Philipp, another being a certain scene with Alexander getting drunk in a Herakles outfit (I liked the symbolism in that plus it was well done) a small bonus is Angelina Jolie who looks hot but apart from that is quite silly with her strange fake pseudo-eastern-european accent (Epirus is WEST of Macedonia, for christ's sake! ;D) and her being *a bit* to young to be Colin Farrell's mother.
Apart from historical mistakes the movie is boring for the most part and just plain bad filmmaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ludwag

they couldnt make it look like he fought greeks, when the wide audience knows only that alexander was greek and fought persians.

---

It's the same as with 300, and it's ridiculous depiction of "Persians" as some sort of mutated, modern day arabs. Definitely not propaganda or anything of the sort there...

(imitation GW Bush voice)
"ancient persians was the same lookin as modern day arab terrists! yee-haw!"

I would imagine people like the guy below thought 300 was one of the most "historicalest" movies ever.
https://i249.photobucket.com/albums/...n_morans-1.jpg

And before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm a US citizen as well. Sadly, history isn't exactly an exalted study topic here in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

The film was far too long, and some idiot thought having the most iconic battle completely obscured by clouds of dust would "improve" things.

---

It was probably the same idiot who believed that Chaeronea, Granicus, and Issus were totally unimportant. Starting the movie with Chaeronea would have vastly improved things, IMHO.

The battle scene is better than other previous ancient war movies. Somehow majority is historical accurate especially the phalanx line. But when you try to watch it more than once, you'll see it lacks too many details.

The whole movie.....it's not really that good, I can't see the real alexander in the movie. I just like the battle scene that's all.

Have anyone notice that the old ptolemy said "we kill him", "we never believe in his dreams". What's your opinion?

well in the end they presented both sides of what modern historians/scholors believed
he died possibly from a sickness or was poisoned
(as he ptolemaio said, we killed him.. but then said write it as he died from a sickness)

although the persians were inacurately displayed (it took 5 miles of clothing material for that scene alone)
something that was missing was, the second line of greek hoplites/ mercanries behind the phalanx
ya one thing i could name outright
the greek hoplite mercanries by darius

2 TPC-- nice criticism but might i say that this is on a historical battle and therefore they put alexander do a nice long speech to gain morale and to view the enemy as inferior :)
good points 2 btw

1. Angelina Jolie as Alexander's mother is a mis-cast (fake breasts, anyone?)
2. Rosario Dawson is quite mis-placed in Afghanistan, but hey she's gorgeous so I give a f*** about it
3. Colin Farrell as Alexander is a mis-cast, but serves the ends of the film
4. Hephaistion is not overly present in the movie iirc
5. Philipp is depicted well methinks, being the brutal drunken bastard that he most likely was
6. Even in a three-hour movie, there is no way of placing 3 - 5 battles and 3 sieges in it. People would just go out of the theatre
7. Gaugamela was fairly good. They showed many accurate types of troops, and that is by far more than in any other movie
8. The depiction of tusk-severing is disgusting
9. Showing pseudo-ancient maps with pseudo-greek looking English nomenclatura is ridicoulous
10. The film gives the illiterate audiency a fairly good overview of Alexander's life and conquests, which is a good thing
11. I appreciate the film, though finding it a bit tedious.

I totally agree with number 6

Altho I would have loved to see the siege of Tyre in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlc82

It's the same as with 300, and it's ridiculous depiction of "Persians" as some sort of mutated, modern day arabs. Definitely not propaganda or anything of the sort there...

---

Meh, 300
1. Is a visualization of a comics and was never meant to be historicaly accurate.
2. The story itself is told to us by the only surviving Spartan, who was send home by the Leonidas to "spread the word". What we see is a tale - full of drama and not at all realistic. Nothing to be surprised or disappointed at.

Guys, its just a movie, movies are to entertain.:wall:

And compared to alot of other movies this was very realistic and accurate, which is just a bonus really:yes:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

[*]Philipp is depicted well methinks, being the brutal drunken bastard that he most likely was

---

This is one of the things I can't stand in this movie. Philip was not the drunken bastard. He was a genius of both politics and military. Probably one of the brightest stars among ancient Greek leaders. We are speaking about a man who took demoralised band of skirmishers with nice cavalry and changed them in less than 10 years into invincible fighting machine, at the same time dragging his country from poor wood producer for current leading city-states to economical power.

He wasn't also especially brutal for his times.

He was drinking a lot. Just like Churchill - would you call him drunken bastard?

Quote:

---

Just like Churchill - would you call him drunken bastard?

---

Yes.

But in an affectionate way.:smash:

There was also a critical point in Alexander's life that was completely breezed over in the film - his visit to the oracle at Siwa.

If there was any event that sent him down the path that he followed and managed to psychologically damage him (which included scaring the hell out of his companions at times) it was that moment in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

This is one of the things I can't stand in this movie. Philip was not the drunken bastard. He was a genius of both politics and military. Probably one of the brightest stars among ancient Greek leaders. We are speaking about a man who took demoralised band of skirmishers with nice cavalry and changed them in less than 10 years into invincible fighting machine, at the same time dragging his country from poor wood producer for current leading city-states to economical power.

---

Wow, I didn't know that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

, but hey, if Oliver Stone can sweep "trivialities" under the rug, then why not this too?

By the way, I never knew Alexander and Hephaistion used to play dress-up as kids; especially with Alexander dressed up as a sheik. Yeah, the 501st thing we learned from this horrid film. I don't mind artistic liberties in films, but damn it, this is beyond stupid. Apparently Romans are great fighters, but by this time, Rome was just a city in a landscape otherwise dominated by the Etruscans and various other Italic tribes..

---

man, they weren't even dressed like sheikhs...not 330BC sheikhs, or mdern tribal varieties, or anything in the middle. they're dressed..like...I dunno, something offensive?

*for those of you who don't know, I reccomend this one book about "arab dress; from the dawn of Islam to modern times". no I don't remember the author. plus, if you lived in the arab world, you'd know.

Yeah, I know. There was actually no such thing as a "sheik", neither as a title nor as a clothing stereotype (Dishdasha-tunics, ighal-fillets et al.) to begin with at this time. The earliest depictions even remotely looking like the commonwealth Arabian noble dress originated in late-Parthian to early Sassanian times at best through a bas-relief depicting actual Arabs. It was a completely unnecessary addition to the film, serving as a "precedent" to Alexander's ambition to conquer "Arabia" (Which is a gross over-simplification to a national entity with no formal existence at the time).

Now..

No matter what you think of the film, how awful or good it was, the Hollywood producers did what they had planned.. They made you want to see the movie!
I personally found the movie entertaining and I think it was supposed to be that way. It's not historically accurate but it's not that inaccurate as well. They at least knew the names of Alexanders generals!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Guys, its just a movie, movies are to entertain.:wall:

---

I agree.

And despite the many historical inaccuracies, with only one more battle scene as good as Gaugamela it would've been a great movie. Now it's just a little blaah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

Now..

No matter what you think of the film, how awful or good it was, the Hollywood producers did what they had planned.. They made you want to see the movie!
I personally found the movie entertaining and I think it was supposed to be that way. It's not historically accurate but it's not that inaccurate as well. They at least knew the names of Alexanders generals!

---

I disagree; I believe the film was deliberately selective in its depiction of the cultures therein, further emphasized by the employment of one of the world-class authorities on the Graeco-Macedonian culture and Hellenistic era, Robin Lane Fox who was readily sacrificing his credit into the movie to "partake in Alexander's cavalry charge at Gaugamela". It was a 155 million dollar exercise, and apparently for the Persians as far as accuracy must have cost, notwithstanding Babylon, it apparently costs nothing.

155 millions of taxpayer-dollars, and we hear Pharnaces yell "Yalla!" to his troops. 155 millions of taxpayer-dollars, and apparently Alexander and Hephaistion dressed up as sheiks during their childhood. To me, there is no credible excuse anymore.

Well. I personaly I have only seen Gaugamela out of the movie - and I must say I watched it with mixed feelings. It did show the Phalanx quite accuratly and also showed the wast number of persians (there deciption was truly inaccurate - agree with TPc. It realy didn't seem like there was any order among the persian troops although they were masters of cordinating troop-movement of large armies on the battlefield, no Elephants no sign of a succesful flanking manouver by the persian cavalry..)

About the rest I coudn't say anything since I didn't see it. As much as I heard that argument betwen Philippos and Alexandros was relativly accurate - it showed how bad there relation had become (but did the film tell what happaned to that General whos daughter was married by Philippos?~:confused:)

I would also like to ask a question from TPC since he seems to know more info about eastern history the me: did Dareios flee at the battle of Gaugamela? I know he fled at Issus - (leaving his whole family behind)and was killed by his Generals some time after Gaugamela since he didn't want to retreat anymore...

Oh yeah one more thing: did the film depict that Alexandros admyred the Archemanid Persian Empire and its rulers and mostly conquered it to become as great (or greater) then them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

I believe the film was deliberately selective in its depiction of the cultures therein,

---

That's true. I have read some books about Alexander and I waited him to fight against the greek mercenaries(I have forgot their commanders name) and the big 'mob' of want-to-be soldiers surprised me as well.
But then again, average people in America or Europe don't know much about the real Alexander and it was easier for the producers to make Alexander as the great European hero and the Persians as .. well .. what they were in film.
But just like I said.. this film was meant to be entertaining and not historically accurate one. Like all films.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

I would also like to ask a question from TPC since he seems to know more info about eastern history the me: did Dareios flee at the battle of Gaugamela? I know he fled at Issus - (leaving his whole family behind)and was killed by his Generals some time after Gaugamela since he didn't want to retreat anymore...

---

There is no consensus; Some would contend that the Greek sources were sufficient, in spite of propagandistic sensationalism, but not all of them are contemporary panoramas of the event. Others, including myself would usually refer to a specific Babylonian astronomical diary, which in particular addresses a notorious event; a moon eclipse. The last time we hear of anything even similar is at the battle of Halys between the Medean High King Cyaxares and Lydian King Alyattes, where the battle was aborted due to the gravity of the omen. The diary pursues to explicitly describe how Darius' troops had abandoned him, and how Darius must therefore have pursued his troops in order to rally them back into position. In addition to Bessus' premature retreat of the battle, who certainly must have viewed the omen of the moon eclipse to have been favourable for his own personal agenda, the gravity of the omen, as indicated by contemporary astronomers was huge:

Quote:

---

On the thirteenth day of the month of Ulûlu in the fifth year of Darius there was an eclipse of the moon, which was entirely darkened as Jupiter set. Saturn was four fingers distant. As the eclipse became total, a westerly wind was blowing; as the moon became visible again, an easterly wind. During the eclipse there were deaths and plagues.

---

This is of vast importance: If there was indeed a moon eclipse, let alone during the setting of Jupiter, it would usually be an omen pertaining to the king himself (Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Histories 7.37.3). With the western wind blowing against the east, there would have been no question, even to the troops who were mostly laity, in their superstition that Darius was going to lose.

Quote:

---

On the morning of the twenty-fourth of the month of Ulûlu, the king of the world [Alexander] raised his standard [lacuna]. The armies engaged each other and the king’s soldiers suffered a heavy defeat. The troops abandoned their king [Darius] and headed back to their cities. They fled to the lands in the east. Astronomical Diaries, -330, obv.15-18

---

You can read more here: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z7.html

As for Issus, there was simply too much to risk at the time, but with the disorderly retreat, Darius also made his greatest blunder. The most important lesson he had learned from Issus was to bring a large number of heavy horse, faciliate an envelopment through formation overlapping and numerous other strategic considerations.

well, at least the guy didn't exit the battle on a mare-the babylonians would have had a laugh at that.

I thought the movie was as ENTERTAINING as "300." Which is to say, I did not enjoy it from a historical perspective. Like "300" I have to just pretend that "Alexander" was a movie based on, say, a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Great stuff, to be sure, but not historically accurate. I guess it would be sort of like "The Lord of the Rings" if the that movie was extremely loosely based on real events.

a movie about one of histories greatest military commanders and only had two battles. and both were poorly done historically and just poorly shot. its seems to me like the movie was geared to making alexander a anti war statement. constantly making references to him being a tyrant and as far as we know rumors about whether he was gay or not.a unbelievable let down. :no::no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red_Russian13

I thought the movie was as ENTERTAINING as "300." Which is to say, I did not enjoy it from a historical perspective. Like "300" I have to just pretend that "Alexander" was a movie based on, say, a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Great stuff, to be sure, but not historically accurate. I guess it would be sort of like "The Lord of the Rings" if the that movie was extremely loosely based on real events.

---

It might have been. Pelennor definitely has elements of Chalons and the 1683 Siege of Vienna, and the marshes that led to Mordor were heavily influenced by Tolkien's experiences in The Great War.

I liked the move quite a bit. Though I will say that I was severely disappointed by the way that the movie focused on Alexander's sexual orientation more than his military genius or incredible daring. Even so, it is a very entertaining movie.

On a totally unrelated note:
Jared Leto, the guy who played Hephaistion (is that how it's spelled?), is apparently the lead singer/back-up guitarrist of a band called 30 Seconds to Mars. Worth checking out if you are into rock (I've only heard their acoustic songs, so I wouldn't really know if the standard versions are good, but I imagine they are).