Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Alexander
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Saturday, 7th October 2006
I started watching a truly truly awful film last night, Alexander (so bad I couldn't watch the whole thing) but I realsied that I know very little about the man and his life. Can anyone recommend a good biography I can pick up from somewhere?
-
Message 2
Posted by rheidol (U898537) on Saturday, 7th October 2006
Robin Lane Fox has written extensively & very well on him (even though he was later historical advisor to That Film!) & for a very involving "fictional" treatment, Mary Renault was superb; trilogy, "Fire from Heaven", "The Persian Boy" & "Funeral Games", all still in print, & her factual out-of-print "The Nature of Alexander" is well worth tracking down.
-
Message 3
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Saturday, 7th October 2006
While I didn't enjoy the film that much it was probably more technically accurate than many historical films e.g. at least the cavalry didn't have stirrups.
I too have read Robin Lane Foxes book -
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 8th October 2006
Pengion Classics do translations of the two main sources on Alexander. Arrian and Arrian Curtius Rufus both wrote a few centuries after the events they wrote about. Rufus's version contains a lot of the more racy stuff.
As for the film, its a main fault was that it tried to follow the historically accurate story (as recounted by Arrian and Rufus). This is exactly the opposite of what other films, such as Troy, got slated for - changing the story and being inventive just to make a film appreal to the mass audience. "Alexander" tried to stay true to the story and everyone hated it as a film. I can't help thinking the studios know what they are doing when they distort facts for the sake of a story. -
Message 5
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 9th October 2006
I'm sure it MUST be possible to make a film that is both historically accurate AND a good film.
One day.... one day...
Grrr... one day there will be a revolution and we can get rid of the stupid timer thing on the messageboards! -
Message 6
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Monday, 9th October 2006
I understand that Robin Lane Fox actually rode as an extra in the films' depiction of the battle of Granicus. That was one of the few gripping episodes. I don't think the film was that bad , just felt that Colin Farrel as Alexander was almost unwatchable.
-
Message 7
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Monday, 9th October 2006
i thought the battle scenes in Alexander were very good but Mr Farrel was the wrong choice for the lead. there must be someone out on Hollywood land that can make a better go of it! looking forward to the 300, Frank Millars Spartans certainly dont hold back on the violence!!
-
Message 8
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Monday, 9th October 2006
Wouldn't be too optimistic about historical accuracy in 300, I saw a trailer where the Spartans are wearing virtually no armour, just a shield and a helmet.
I am pretty sure that one of the main characteristics of the Greek hoplite in comparison to the Persian infantry was the heavy armour worn by the Greeks. -
Message 9
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Monday, 9th October 2006
there are some that believe that most Greeks only wore a breastplate, along with their shield, helment and spear.
i always thought they have full armor, including leg guards. but i just thought most information on hoplites come from the great Spartan-Athens was, were armour had become more heavy and more used. that conflict came along time after the Persian threat had been defeated. so maybe, it is correct that the Spartans of that day wore little armour compared to later hopiltes? i will have to re-fresh my reading. -
Message 10
Posted by doctor diamond (U2053921) on Monday, 9th October 2006
I don’t know how true to fact Alexander was, but it was incredibly boring! I know Troy took several liberties with Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr’s Iliad but at least it retained the key themes of heroism, honour and loyalty as well as being entertaining.
-
Message 11
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Monday, 9th October 2006
The 300 trailor shows them without even a breastplate or greaves.
My most recent reading on the Persian/Greek wars is from Tom Holland's Persian Fire.
In the book's discription of the Marathon 10 years earlier he describes how much heavier armoured the Greeks were compared to the Persians including having greaves and a breast plate - they had to have good armour to protect them from the Persian arhcers. -
Message 12
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Monday, 9th October 2006
in the clip, are the Spartans fighting or is it the one when they are marching to the battle field and meet with the other Greeks? i saw the one with them gathering at a hill side, all in their red cloaks, i have to admit that i didnt take much notice if they had their armour on.
-
Message 13
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Monday, 9th October 2006
The development of Hoplite-armies, with the attendant allowances and duties i.e. the emerging social rights and responsibilities of each individual warrior has been described as the root cause of the demise of certain Greek aristocracies. The status these soldiers gained because of their increased military value ,some argue, was the basis of later Greek Democracy.
If this has any validity then the battles with the Persians must be amongst the most crucial in world history, for Democracy could have been strangled in its cradle.
I hope that 'the 300' is an intelligent(and exciting) reflection on this but fear a 'Blockbuster-Pearl Harbor'type approach. -
Message 14
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Monday, 9th October 2006
copperworks i fear you could be right...i would have gone with Steven Pressifields Gates of Fire book myself...still the screen shots and clips look good, but that could all change in a blink of an eye!
-
Message 15
Posted by anteos (U4228723) on Wednesday, 11th October 2006
what about the armoured rhino? I'm sure that was historically accurate
Having said that, the film does look spectacular, and whilst not historically accurate should be a good representation of the graphic novel upon which it is based. -
Message 16
Posted by Alexlondon11 (U2577420) on Thursday, 12th October 2006
I watched the film all the way through. Scenery, costumes, extras - all impressive. It's just that the acting was just so appalling!
Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie as his parents were just atrocious. So histrionic and over the top - quite a laugh I suppose.
There's one near the beginning where Alexander's addressing his troops and having little chats with them before battle. I guess they were trying to show how well loved he was, but it was really cheesy and didn't work at all.
Oh well, rant over... -
Message 17
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 12th October 2006
A film being historically correct does not mean it will be boring - The Battle of Britain and The Battle of Midway are generally considered historically correct but are both good films, so the fact that Alexander is historically accurate does not explain why it's a bad or dull film - that's down to the Director and the script
-
Message 18
Posted by littleBob (U3546607) on Monday, 16th October 2006
I can recommend 'In the footsteps of Alexander the Great' by Michael Wood. A very good book to those new to the topic of Alexanders conquests. He writes in a very engaging style and doesnt assume a lot of knowledge about the period on th epart of the reader.
I can agree Alexander was particularly bad (although it was shot quite well and could have been so much better). However, Ancient Macedonians speaking with Irish accents? Well it made me laugh -
Message 19
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Monday, 16th October 2006
I don't think Stone's film was such a bad effort as far as Hollywood efforts at historical movies go. You have to give some artistic licence to condense such an eventful life into a single film, so I don't hold it against him that some episodes were blended into one, e.g. pages conspiracy and the earlier execution of Philotas and Parmenion. Before Granicus there would have certainly been a pep talk of sorts and at that stage the Macedonians would have certainly been on familiar terms with their king. What was missing were the tensions in the camp that must have resulted from Alexander's gradual adoption of Oriental court practices and the genocidal crimes committed in eastern Iran and the Punjab. Obviously Stone was keeping mainly to the saniticised pro-Macedonian version of events as recorded by Arrian. I don't think the acting was all that bad, though Hephaestion in mascara looked bit ridiculous.
Jozef -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 17th October 2006
I did not ctiticise that much Troy with Brad Pitt as Achilles (he fitted the role not bad but the film was just mediocre) and I will not criticise that much Alexander - afterall hollywood is hollywood, you can get only that much out of it, I guess if the film "Alexander" was done in Bollywood then you would have during the battle a break of video-clip musical style dancing of Greek hoplites against Indian women moving backwards and forwards along some cheesy music. Fair enough! In the Hollywood case it was just that director and actors were meant to make a film, not a real re-enactment fully faithfull to historic details.
But then who can blame this film when the main writers on the history of Alexander have written already so much irrelevant staff that even today we still have to take out the riff-raff. -
Message 21
Posted by generalmarshall (U2329934) on Wednesday, 18th October 2006
Another ancient source to look at, which I always find a good read is Alexander by Plutarch, who wrote it as a comparison with the life of Caesar I believe!
Alexander was pretty poor, I didn't really enjoy it at all! -
Message 22
Posted by DopeyFrances (U6235658) on Sunday, 22nd October 2006
I've never thought much of Alexander, myself. He might have been a great soldier, but I can't get any sympathy for the man himself. This film did nothing to help.
-
Message 23
Posted by TheGalloway (U5972718) on Sunday, 22nd October 2006
The film Alexander is a bad film, Farrell is not really the right person for the Job, but I am pretty sure the film doesn't stray that far from fact......I may be wrong though, Alexander the Great isn't that high on my knowledge list.
-
Message 24
Posted by TheGalloway (U5972718) on Sunday, 22nd October 2006
About Alexander himself,
I doubt anyone can deny that he was a military genius despite being a flawed person, which I would say he definitely was.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.