Alexander

[liadnan]

I'm just back from three hours of historical epic: the short version - I rather liked it and don't think it deserves the slating it's had, though it has many failings. I would, however, like to know what someone who hasn't read Mary Renault's Alexander Trilogy several times since they were 10ish makes of it.

Apropos of which... that trilogy is quite blatantly the foundation of the film -of the way the story was told and the characters were portrayed-, and so far as I could see it wasn't explicitly acknowledged, though admittedly although I stayed for most of the titles because there were so many people in the cast we'd sat there thinking "oh, that's wossname", I didn't stay to the very end (it was 10 to 11) and there may have been an acknowledgment there. In particular the very first sequence after Old Ptolemy's framework introduction is the beginning of Fire from Heaven: an episode which I'm fairly comes almost entirely from Renault's imagination and serves to set out the emotional relationship between Phillip, Olympias and Alexander, one of the driving themes of both her trilogy and the film - and, quite probably, of the real Alexander's psychological makeup to be fair. Stone goes on to point a big red arrow at what, so far as I remember, Renault leaves as a join the dots exercise for the reader by having Philip include in a discussion with Alexander about mythical heroes not only Achilles and Prometheus but also Oedipus, and a warning about women. That isn't the only bit where I saw her hand but it is the most explicit.

There's nothing wrong with that: her trilogy is probably the best fictionalisation of Alexander's career out there, far better than Maurice Druon's Alexander the God, particularly if you're looking to portray him reasonably positively. But it would have been good to see it acknowledged. I suppose that scene may itself have been Stone's nod to her, but still.

Score a typical Vangelis score: I didn't know for a fact it was him until the credits but would have staggered to find it wasn't. Large chunks of it sounded very much the 1492 score (which I rather like).

One of the reviews I read said Farrell gave a strong performance but was let down by a weak script. While the script is indeed weak, particularly in Farrell's major speeches, his performance was bloody awful, the worst element of the film by a long way. And they really ought to have bleached his eyebrows as well as his hair. The best performance, by far, was Angelina Jolie as Olympias (though I'm biased here). Hopkins as Old Ptolemy was, I thought, fine but there was too much at the end of him summing up.

By and large it seemed pretty close to the historical narrative as I remembered it (I did wonder whether they'd changed the order of his marriages but that was the only significant point). I'd have preferred it had they left it ambiguous whether Alexander was involved in his father's death before the fact: for most of that sequence I wasn't sure how whether Alexander knew what was going to happen or not and then they went and answered a question which should have been left, as it in truth is, open.

Only two battles are included -Gaugamela and, presumably, the battle of the Hydaspes in India but, frankly, wow. I can't remember many better battle scenes. Far and away the high points of the film, excepting only, possibly, Alexander standing looking over the Hindu Kush, and beautifully shot (classic Stone stuff here), particularly the latter. The former in particular had Lane Fox written all over it - a really quite unnecessarily (in that unless you already knew how the battle worked you probably wouldn't get it) accurate account of the battle that shows Alexander for one of the greatest military tacticians of recorded history.

Comments

[scribeoflight.livejournal.com]

There is a reference to Renault here:

http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~jreameszimmerman/Beyond_Renault/review2.html

Makes a similar point to you, I think.

[liadnan]

That's a rather good review I thnk, I agree with much of what he says. Particularly This is the story (part Plutarch, part Curtius, part Arrian) of Alexander of Macedon -- a biopic, or novel on the screen where every plot event serves characterization; characters don't exist purely to move along the plot, as in an adventure story. And therein lies one of the problems with this film for the average film-goer. .... The more one knows, the more one will recognize -- the historical accuracy of sets is better than I've seen in some documentaries.
Bang on.

[liadnan]

Also the criticism of Stone turning Alexander too much into a modern "Brotherhood of Mankind" dreamer, a theory which was around but has long been discarded.

sorry, I'm being my usual pedantic self

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

but, it's a she, not a he. And she also seems a very nice person :)

And I have had some problems with the sets, though not as many as with the sets of Troy, while the best sets I've ever seen so far where in Imperium:Augustus with Peter O'Toole.

Re: sorry, I'm being my usual pedantic self

[mieza.livejournal.com]

LOL! Yes, I am a 'she,' indeed -- a point that (depending) seems to impress or bemuse my male students when I leap into a discussion of Things Military during lecture. :-D And thank you for the kind words.

(I found this via a counter on my page, if anyone is wondering. I'm not randomly stalking journals.)

oh,

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

there are such counters? I had no idea :)

I hope you didn't mind that intrusion of mine. But this is the second time I see it, so I felt I had to say something.

Ah, Things Military. Another thing I'm not very familiar with, even though I know the bibliography I should consult if I were to learn. But, salt cellars and clay vessels come first :) And looking for that errant sceptre.

Re: oh,

[mieza.livejournal.com]

Yup, there are some pretty sophisticated counters. I keep one mostly so I can find if portions of the copyrighted material starts drifting without attribution. Links I never mind, but in the past, I've had sections of the Hephaistion material pop up in other places with no citation or attribution, so that it appeared the site maker had written it herself. Happened twice, and in both cases, the person claimed ignorance -- which may be true -- but it's a potential problem. I don't always comment when I find links to things, but was amused this time. (And sometimes I will comment if someone's given me a compliment; seems rude not to.)

And no, certainly didn't mind the intrusion. As noted, I was flattered. Didn't realize you had two journals. :-)

Re: oh,

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

My limited experience with plagiarism comes from fandom and every time, the plagiarists have claimed that they didn't know. It's the first excuse. (Being in any fandom can make a person cynical).

Oh, thank god. :)

Yes, I have two of them. This is mostly for the friends that I've met in person, or people I've known online for years and years :)

also,

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

I didn't mention the fact that you are a brilliant scholar, since that is obvious! (and, after meeting some really 'odd' professors, I've come to appreciate scholars who are both brilliant and nice even more than those who are just brilliant).

Re: sorry, I'm being my usual pedantic self

[liadnan]

Heavens, everyone is on livejournal. And you read nikandra's other journal too...

Apologies for changing your sex. I have no excuse for assuming/failing to notice at all.

Re: sorry, I'm being my usual pedantic self

[mieza.livejournal.com]

Heavens, everyone is on livejournal.

(chuckle) I'm not sure everyone is. I've tried (vainly) to drag some of my colleagues into more of an online presence, but it's been mostly unsuccessful at this point.

And no problem on the sex change. Happens. And I don't believe that review anywhere actually specifies what my gender is. I'm less twitchy about it than some, tend to be more amused. :-)