Alexander

[fajrdrako]

Today I went to see Alexander with Beulah, Lyn and Tasia.

I loved it. I absolutely loved it. After the bad reviews and the various controversies, I wasn't expecting much. I'm not a big fan of Colin Farrell, so he wasn't much of a draw. But... hope springs eternal. It was Alexander. It was another historical movie, and I've been starved for good historical movies. The good ones have been few and far between for a number of decades. And it was Alexander, the world conqueror whom Mary Renault taught me to appreciate and love.

And it was better than I ever imagined. I'm too happy about it, and to tired now, to be analytical. Instead, here's a list of the things I liked about it:

• Bagoas is in it. Bagoas! (For the uninitiated, he is not only historical but also the hero of Mary Renault's novel The Persian Boy.) I was convinced they'd leave him out. He doesn't get lines, he doesn't get story, but we see him - strikingly - in Darius' harem and he's with Alexander from then till the deathbed. He also gets a nice onscreen kiss with Alexander. And he dances. And... he's included. That was delightful.


• The Maxfield Parrish-like settings of magnificent light-filled palaces and exotic landscapes. It's all very National Geographic-like, in the best ways.


• Bucephalos. What a wonderful horse! I feel I've seen three great horses in the past year in movies: Hidalgo, Shadowfax and now Bucephalos. It brings out the horse-lover in me.


• Alexander's parents. I thought Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie both gave wonderful performances - not profound maybe, but with a lot of character. They were fun to see. I loved Olympias' snakes - I always do! - and as usual was left feeling Olympias was an ambiguous figure. Ambiguous even in Alexander's mind.


• Good history. I recognized lines and events - and a few charming verbal anachronisms, none of them a problem.


• Good Persians. Ever since I did a special report (and a wargame) about Xerxes for Honours History as an undergraduate, I've had more than a soft spot for ancient Persians - and reading The Persian Boy probably helped with that - and it was delightful to see Darius looking striking and beautiful before his fall, like a statue of himself, and the Persian warriors - the archers - I'm not usually a big fan of battle scenes but I did enjoy the main battle with the Persians. On the other hand, I was disappointed not to see the palace at Persepolis.
  
• I hadn't realized Jonathan Rhys Myers was in this movie - I was delighted to see him! At first I thought, "That actor looks like Jonathan Rhys-Meyers!" and then promptly: "Omigosh, that actor is Jonathan Rhys-Meyers!"


• They didn't stint on the emotional importance to Alexander of his relationship with Hephaistion, though they were carefully discreet - we didn't get anything quite as overt as a kiss (worse luck) though there were enough hugs, neck-rubs, hand-holding and so on to make up for it - a sense of intimacy that I thought worked quite well. Too bad our only real sex scene was with Roxana - and no complaint there, I liked it, it was quite different, a break from most typical movie sex scenes. It would be nice to think we should get equal time for Hephaistion, but too much to expect even in some mythical extended edition. There were, however, numerous moments where I thought: if Hephaistion was a woman, they'd have kissed at that point. The restraint was awkward. The result (to my eyes) was that the relationship with Hephaistion looked like all love, no lust.

There were things about it that weren't so well done. Pacing and structure were poor, I thought. The story isn't quite chronological, for reasons I couldn't guess - why not? The script was adequate but not great. It needed tightening, it needed a little more of a thematic climax.

But none of that stopped me from loving it.

Comments

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Bagoas! (hee) and Darius were THE REASONS I enjoyed this movie at all. The problems you mentioned, pace, timing, structure, were what ruined it for me, and I just couldn't get past them because they were so obvious, for me like pulling fingernails down the chalkboard.

I wanted a kiss between the two male lovers. I don't think a kiss would have canceled out the love for lust. It seemed the natural step after scenes of gentle, ambiguous hugging. I felt like they were holding back, especially with the full-blown male/female sex scene where they practically ate one another, literally.

I wanted Anthony Hopkins' bit completely out of there. It rambled. I lost interest. After a while, I really just wanted more of Bagoas or Darius, because I was loving them so much and ignoring everything else.

I couldn't stand Angelina Jolie. Colin Ferrell was ok (though nothing like I imagined for Alexander) but Jolie made me want to pick my brain out from my ear.

But I'm glad someone enjoyed it (LOL), cause I really wanted to enjoy it (being a history buff) but I couldn't. I haven't, mind you, read Mary Renault. Maybe one day. Too much to read!

I am sorely disapointed that I can not find a photo of Bagoas (Francisco Bosch) on the web, in costume. Wah.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Bagoas! (hee) and Darius were THE REASONS I enjoyed this movie at all.

There were a lot of reasons I enjoyed it, and they were two of the finest. Though neither of them has a line they seemed very in character to me, and most intriguing.

I wanted a kiss between the two male lovers.

Well, so did I. I knew better than to expect it. It was a glaring anomaly - a dozen cases where Alexander and Hephaition would have and should have kissed, they didn't, and that was annoying. On the other hand, I knew beforehand not to expect it, and counted myself lucky that we got a (public) kiss with Bagoas. Yes, I wanted a private kiss with Bagoas, and noticed with some wry resentment that Roxana got kissed without hesitation. Lucky Roxana.

I would have preferred to do without Anthony Hopkins' narration, though I liked seeing the Egyptian palaces. My preference would have been to see Alexander in Egypt - I wanted to see him proclaimed a good - but not to have the historical retrospective, which didn't illuminate much. (The Anthony Hopkins bits made me think of Rocky Horror Picture Show, no doubt the wrong image.)

Colin Farrell is not my mental image of Alexander either but I couldn't tell, as the movie went on, whether my problem was with his looks, his acting, his voice, or his script. Not that this spoiled the movie for me - I liked him well enough, and we all have different mental images of anyone, just look at all the divergences with Lymond - but I would have been happier with someone else in the lead role. I don't know who. The actor/character meld that ought to be there in my head never really occurred; Alexander for me is still the mental picture I had from the books, quite distinct from Farrell. (And no, it is not the least like William Shatner.)

I was looking for a picture of Bagoas too, and failed to find it. If you do find it, let me know,okay? And I'll tell you if I find him. I'd like a picture of Darius too.

Now, you really should read Mary Renault's books Fire from Heaven amnd The Persian Boy. I read The Persian Boy first and I fell madly in love with both Bagoas and Alexander. I still love that books and occasionally quote it. (Conversely, the third of he Alexander books, Funeral Games bored me - probably because Alexander isn't in it. Perhaps I should try reading it again.)

What I really want is for someone to make a good movie based closely on one of the Renault novels about Alexander.

I do think a better movie about Alexander could and should be made, and I hope someone makes it. Meanwhile, I did enjoy this one.

[rosiespark.livejournal.com]

What I really want is for someone to make a good movie based closely on one of the Renault novels about Alexander.

Doesn't Mel Gibson own the rights? 'Nuff said!

And I had the same reaction to Funeral Games. I wonder why? ;)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, Mel Gibson owns the rights, and I can only suppose it's because he doesn't want anyone else to be able to make the movies. This does not mean the movies can't ever be made, or that Mel Gibson will hold the rights forever. It's just an obstacle.

As for Funeral Games - maybe it was just a boring book. Mary Renault, though at her best an unsurpassed writer, at her worst could write clumsily and badly.

[rosiespark.livejournal.com]

I was actually trying to say that I agree with you that Funeral Games is boring because Alexander isn't in it. I mean, imagine if it really had been Lymond who Austin shot at the end of Checkmate - how appealing would a seventh book be? ;)

Oh, and what are you thinking of that's clumsily and badly written?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

if Austin had really shot Lymond - aargh, don't even think it! And no, I wouldn't want to read about the surviving members of the Crawford and Somerville families. No way.

As for clumsily and badly written, I was actually thinking of The Friendly Young Ladies, which I thought had superb scenes and characters but some appalling plotting and pacing and mismatched scenes and other awkwardness, like overstating the obvious from time to time. I know I was reading it decades after it was written and times were different and that accounts for a lot of it.

And yet even when I was reading it and thinking that the writing needed some restucturing and re-editing, I was enjoying it immensely and thought it had good powerful themes so badly written as applied to Mary Renault is still a heck of a lot better than most writers can manage.

[rosiespark.livejournal.com]

I remember liking The Friendly Young Ladies, but can't remember enough about it to really comment. I did find some of it confusing - I think Renault was still exploring the balance between oblique and completely bloody mystifying in that one. She does get it right in The Charioteer.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, she definitely got it right in the Charioteer. As I recall, The Friendly Young Ladies had a lot of shifting of viewpoint and jumping from one theme to another that made it unneceessarily difficult to read -jumpy and confusing. On the other hand, some of the scenes and characters were nothing short of brilliant, so it was worthwhile, just not smoothly done.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

My comment about Mel Gibson only wanting to prevent the making of the Mary Renault movies we really want is perhaps unfair. I was just remembering The Man Without a Face, a wonderful novel about a friendship between a gay teacher and a boy who is his student - which Gibson made into a movie in which the teacher was not gay at all. Maybe that's his intent: to write about a straight Alexander and pretend it's Mary Renault's doing.

Faugh.

[rosiespark.livejournal.com]

Faugh indeed! My own suspicions were along those lines, even without knowing that the teacher in The Man without a Face should have been gay! It's a long time since I saw it, and that was probably in Italian, so it's a bit hazy, but didn't the teacher have some sort of secret, something about a relationship with a former student that had ended tragically? I don't remember whether it was implied that it was a sexual relatyionship, though, or just a mentoring one that went wrong somehow... ::curses foggy brain::

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Re The Man Without a Face: the original story (which I loved) was about a boy who is doing badly in school, who befriends a retired schoolteacher whose face was half ruined in an accident, and because of his help, intelligence, understanding and dedication, not only gets the skills for good grades but an expanded insight into the world. The teacher is a recluse with a dark secret: it turns out that the tragedy in his past is that he was having an affair with a teen-aged student whom he was with when the car they were in an accident and the student was killed. His grief and shame turned him into a hermit, and his friendship with the student in the present does a lot to return his own self-esteem and purpose in life. There's more to it than that (including the adolescent's own sexual self-discovery) and I thought it a marvellous, insightful book.

Mel Gibson madethe teacher someone who is wrongly accused of having seduced a student, chaning the whole thrust of the plot and theme.

[rosiespark.livejournal.com]

Hmm. It being a wrongful accusation waters things down to the point where it's not the same story at all. I suppose Bagoas would merely be a servant if Gibson did make The Persian Boy. In much the same way Achilles and Patroclus were cousins in Troy. Cousins. I spit.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It being a wrongful accusation waters things down to the point where it's not the same story at all.

Exactly - a totally different story, where an entirely different point is made. Not a bad story in itself, but disappointing if you know what the story was in the book. I wonder what the original author (Isabelle Holland) thought about that. And of course the young boy's sexuality was left out of it entirely.

Bagoas as a servant - it sounds just too terribly plausible.

In much the same way Achilles and Patroclus were cousins in Troy.

"You dirty rat - you killed my cousin!" In Alexander there's a like early on (delivered by Christopher Plummer, I think) about "Achilles and his lover Patroclus". That was nice to hear!

[blackbyrde.livejournal.com]

Cool! I don't think I'll be able to get out to see the movie, but I'm going to try and pick up those books. :)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I can lend them to you, if you'd like. They are terrific - classics. Highly recommended, along with many of her others, particularly the Theseus books.

[blackbyrde.livejournal.com]

That would be wonderful! I discover so many great books because of you! :)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Happy to be of service when it comes to good books!

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Fire from Heaven first and then The Persian Boy? I'll check them out soon as I can.

Oooh, Darius pics! Must look.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Darius. I've always loved those Persian kings. Too bad we only know their story from the Greek point of view.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I found icons of Bagoas by _ming at http://www.livejournal.com/users/_ming/140890.html. It's been an interesting quest....

[rosiespark.livejournal.com]

I really want to like this, and I really hope that I do - but I have this nasty sinking feeling that I won't. :( Still, it's encouraging that you liked it. We shall see...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

The reviews have been so bad, it's hard to maintain hope, and goodness knows it is at best a flawed movie. But my reaction was not just enjoyment but enthusiasm, despite its flaws. It isn't the movie I really want but it isn't as far from that movie as it might have been.

[jkluge.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for such a nice thorough review! This is a huge help to me, because you've addressed two of the most important questions (to my mind) that pro reviewers never would have: Bagoas and Hephaistion.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well, Hephastion and Bagoas are vitally important in my mind! In a perfect world, the movie would have given us a good sex scene with Hephaistion (equivalent, say, to the one with Roxana) and their hugs would have been less chaste. And if truth be told, Hephaistion, though lovely, came out as somewhat bland. Bagoas was intriguing and though I would have liked more scenes with him - apparently there were some steamier ones, which were cut - there was also something nice about his mystique as being part of the allure of the exotic east. And his dancing was nice.

[widget-alley.livejournal.com]

I have the Persian Boy on my reading list... should I bump it up to the top?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I have the Persian Boy on my reading list... should I bump it up to the top?

Hmm, yes, I would say so. Of course it rather depends what else is on your list, but yes, The Persian Boy should be right up there. In fact, I'm going to postpone a bunch of other books I was going to read just to reread it for the first time in a decade or two. I'm in the mood.

It's first class historical fiction.