More about Alexander...

[fajrdrako]

I just came back from seeing Alexander again, this time with lmondegreen, who hadn't seen it yet. I was glad she wanted to.

Seeing it a second time did a lot to clarify my thoughts about it, both good and bad. One thing that was fun: when I saw it last week, it had been decades since I'd read the history of Alexander's time, and since I'd read Mary Renault's novels about him. Yes, I've been reading about Greece and Greeks, but Homer and Herodotus are considerably earlier - it didn't help!

In the last week I've been reading The Persian Boy again and it has done much to clarify my memory of names, events and places - at least the Mary Renault version. Over suppertime, I was reading the scene where Alexander has had Philotas and Parmenios put to death, and then turns to Bagoas afterwards. It struck me how close the Oliver Stone scene is to the Mary Renault scene there: I'd read in reviews that Stone had borrowed concepts and scenes from the Renault novels, but I hadn't specifically noticed what they were. This was delightfully parallel: Alexander distressed, pacing, writing letters, feverishly going over his papers, and then getting comfort from Bagoas. The biggest difference is that in the novel, Bagoas comforts Alexander with words as well as sex, talking to him about kingly duties and his own fidelity. The movie Bagoas never says a word in our hearing. I rather liked that.

This time round I played a game: 'spot Hephaistion' and 'spot Bagoas'. It's remarkable how much they are present - Bagoas especially, in beautiful clothes, standing gracefully in the background, except for the times he's in the foreground. At the end of the movie I wondered where Bagoas went: one minute he's mopping the dying Alexander's brow, the next minute the Greek lords are fighting over the corpse and he is nowhere to be seen. In the book, didn't he throw himself over Alexander's body to protect it?

When I saw the movie the first time, I was surprised that we first encountered Bagoas in Darius' harem. Then I thought: well, of course, where else would a king's eunuch be? On rereading The Persian Boy I realized why I found it strange: Mary Renault makes it clear that in her version Bagoas was never in the harem, and in fact feared and dreaded a future in which he might have to go into the harem, if the King didn't want him any more - like a sort of royal pension plan. I find this puzzling. Since Bagoas' only function at court is to sleep with the King, isn't that precisely the role of people in the harem? So why wasn't he there? Why is he different? Why does he have his own room, his own horse, his own inexplicable status, and a fair degree of freedom? Perhaps just so Mary Renault can describe things that Bagoas would never see from the harem. Or perhaps to emphasize his pride. In terms of story, I suppose one could postulate that Darius honoured Bagoas as the former heir of a Persian lord, since his father had died honourably in service to the crown. I'm enjoying trying to guess Mary Renault's reasons for writing various things the way she did, and the reasons for her historical interpretations.

If anything, I loved the movie a second time even more than the first. At the same time its flaws are glaring - it's a magnificent failure, lavish in its scope, but with a storyline that is confusing, muddled and unevenly paced. Stone gives us so many Alexander themes that the man gets lost under the weight of it all - is he Oedipus, Achilles, Herakles, or Jason? Is he the first modern man, or a unique genius, or the victim of his times? Is he the quintessential Greek, the Macedonian hero, or a crosscultural hero who transcends ethnicity? Is he a loner at the top, or the man who has many loves? These are all very distinct ideas and if the movie had stuck to any one of them, I might have understood what it was trying to say. But Alexander can't be all of these things at once - not if the movie is to be coherent at all - and I was left more confused than ever about what he was, what moved him, and why he was so successful. He comes across as mostly confused. (Or maybe that was me.) Certainly the sense of military genius disappeared: as far as I could tell, all the battles were pretty much free-for-alls. It took me till the second viewing to be able to recognize all the generals by face and name. Well, almost all - was the gent wth the nice smile, the beard, and the Persian clothes supposed to be Roxana's brother, or did I just imagine that? What was his name?

I liked Hephaistion a lot better this time, but I wish he'd had more of a voice in the scenes with the Generals and I wish he'd kissed Alexander at least once.

I talked about things I liked last time, here are a few things I really didn't like:

• The recurring image of the eagle. It just didn't work for me at all. Hokey.


• The Oedipal incest theme. If the whole movie had been about Alexander's relationship with his parents (or with either one of them) it would have been fine, but there was too much going on emotionally and I found it intrusive.


• The pronunciation of Boukephalos as "Busephalos".


• The non-chronogological parts. I can see why the death of Phillip was explained to match the death of Cleitus, but I thought it made the theme muddier rather than clearer, and it certainly made the timeline more confusing.


• The battle in India, with the exaggerated wounding scene and the misplaced death of Boukephalos. The special effects were great, but they made the whole incident seem anticlimactic.

And I still have mixed feelings on a few items: the wedding-night sex scene, some of the Alexander/Hephaistion dialogue (when it sounds as if they're making speeches to each other), the choreography of the death of Philip. Most of all I have mixed feelings about Colin Farrell's portrayal of Alexander - looks, acting, style - did he manage to become the historical Alexander in my eyes? Not quite. Almost. Maybe. Was he a great charismatic leader? No. Was he attractive? ...Often.

Loved, absolutely loved, the costumes, sets, and landscapes.

My biggest problem with the movie: it seemed as if Oliver Stone was making the movie to explain and make apologies for Alexander's failure. But when I look at Alexander's life, it doesn't look like a failure to me, it looks like a success. The movie did not convince me otherwise.

I came home in a heavy snowstorm. The bus had some trouble with every slope, and my walk from the bus stop had me walking against the wind with my hood wrapped so tight around my face that I could hardly see a thing. Couldn't see anything anyway, actually. Got home safe and sound: I wonder how much snow will be on the ground tomorrow.

Comments

[medelle.livejournal.com]

I could be wrong, but I think Bagoas may have been sort of afraid of the harem - perhaps due to the stereotypical "intruige" that is often assumed to go on in large groups of women.

I think also, and this is a more logical explanation, that to go from being the King's official fuck buddy, to being in charge of the Harem might have been a step down status wise.

I did a quick Google search but didn't find anything useful. :)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think Bagoas may have been sort of afraid of the harem

He thought it was boring, and he thought if he went there he would become simply another servant - and that he would never emerge. And he was probably right.

I suspect there are not a lot of reliable original sources for life in Persian at the time and that Mary Renault was freely extrapolating from similar known societies - just as I have been doing.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

A couple of observations (scooting in from your reply in megalexandros) ...

Bagoas was in the harem because Stone had to do a LOT of conflating and didn't include the event whereby historically Bagoas is said to ahve come into ATG's possession. In fact, if you notice, ALL other Asian cities are conflated into Babylon. There's no mention of Susa, Persepolis, Ekbatana, etc. Just Babylon. Again, I understand why he did that -- too many strange names of cities never heard of. At least Babylon is vaguely familiar. Lots and lots and lots of that kind of conflating. :-)

There was a big debt to Renault. Why not just go with Renault? Copyright issues and payment of royalties. Some while back, the rights to Renault's books in film form were purchased by a middleman. That raises the fee considerably. One can't copyright a plot, so Stone just went around it. I see this less as avoiding the fees (which wouldn't go to Renault in any case, as she's dead) so much as avoiding the middle-men. Initially, I was annoyed by the practice, but after seeing it, I do think Stone meant to honor her, not rip her off.

The recurring image of the eagle. It just didn't work for me at all. Hokey.

It's a Golden Eagle, the symbol of royalty, and is also supposed to be Zeus, as ATG's father. Didn't bug me, but then there was a lot of heavy-handed points.

The pronunciation of Boukephalos as "Busephalos".

That's correct, actually. At least in the common pronunciation. If we were going to go with "Bou-KEY-fa-las" then it would also have to be BILL-eep-pos, a-LEX-andros, ptoo-le-MAI-os, He-pais-TEE-own (not hee-FAIS-tee-own), etc. Stone mostly went with British Classics pronunciations (hence da-RAI-us, not DAR-ee-us). Boukephalas is the transliteration of the Greek. It usually appears Bucephalas.

But when I look at Alexander's life, it doesn't look like a failure to me, it looks like a success.

In that, we probably differ in opinion. As a professional historian, I look at his life as mostly a problem and tragedy. I'm not very romantic about ATG. ;>

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Glad to see you drop by!

ALL other Asian cities are conflated into Babylon

Oh yes, of course. Which plays merry hell with the timeline but I have no problem with that. In fact I have no problem with Bagoas being in the harem - my query was the opposite, as to why Mary Renault kept him out of the harem. I think she had good reason and made the right choices, but it seemed a point to think about.

I thought the movie did a beautiful job with Babylon and heartily approve the choice to make it the focal and archetypal Persian city - even though I chuckled at Roxana's urging Alexander to go 'back to Babylon' when she'd never seen the city in her life.

I wish Stone could have just filmed the Renault books, one at a time. It would have been a much better movie, a better written and structured movie. (or pair of movies.) I understand why he couldn't. I'm not happy about it, but what we see is what we get and my conclusion is: imperfect as it was, this movie is better than no Alexander movie, and better than any that have preceded it.

Anyway, I think Stone respected the Renault influence and made the most of it, and that it resulted in some of the best scenes and themes in the movie.

I understood the symbolism of the eagle: I just thought it was way too heavy-handed and looked fake. If he'd pulled it off with more grace, I'd have loved it. Not a major point, no... Perhaps it just bothered me as being an example of other parts of the story that were handled clumsily. I would have liked it too if it had been a major point - if the movie had actually been about Alexander's attempts to honour or emulate a Zeus whom he believed to be his father - but the point was lost among many others.

My gripe about the pronunciation of Bucephalos is just because I'm reading Mary Renault at the moment. Don't take it too seriously. It had less to do with 'right' and 'wrong' than with switching mental spelling gears twice in one day.

I am very romantic about Alexander, and I'm interested in why historians are not. (Besides that fact that historians are trained to put romance aside.) Put another way: I'm here because I enjoy the romance, but I'm also interested in the objective history as well - and this is true of many figures, subjects, and times. Which is why it's such fun to discuss and why I am looking forward to further reading.

My point about the movie, though, is that having no reason (as an uninformed member of the public) I didn't understand why Stone was presenting Alexander as a tragedy and I still don't know why he did that. I think he understood why just as I suspect you understand why; but it didn't become clear to me in the movie and I still don't know.

[mieza.livejournal.com]

My point about the movie, though, is that having no reason (as an uninformed member of the public) I didn't understand why Stone was presenting Alexander as a tragedy and I still don't know why he did that. I think he understood why just as I suspect you understand why; but it didn't become clear to me in the movie and I still don't know.

This is one of the biggest problems with the film. OTOH, the average film-goer expected Alexander THE GREAT and didn't get him. The last part of ATG's life really is the most interesting, but it's hard to understand the depth and bitterness of the conflict between ATG and his men without the middle, successful part when he was their darling. Stone tried to do this with his entry into Babylon, but it wasn't really enough.

The other problem is that historians saw those shades of Tarn's "Brotherhood of Mankind" which is historical hogwash and (I think) got distracted. Even my own academic father wrote a scathing review and mentioned that Stone had bought into that. Whereas the movie as I saw it *deflated* that -- but it did so by context.

The problem is probably whether or not it should even have been mentioned. I thought Stone was going after the Romantic Alexander and trying to take the air out of it. But by even bringing it *up* and having Alexander parrot those things, it was misleading. In that respect, the movie stopped being historical and became more of a comment on modern Alexander scholarship. And I think that's what historians are objecting to, whether or not they 'got' how Stone was undermining Tarn. That he brought it up at all was ahistorical. They're right, but I suppose I could see what he was doing.

Basically, I think he knew audiences would walk in looking for a romantic Alexander -- and he wanted to turn that around. I don't think he really succeeded because he tried to cover too much, too fast. But I can at least respect what I believe he was after. :-)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

This is one of the biggest problems with the film.

I thought so. It was largely responsible for the sense of mixed message: expecting triumph, we got decay, and, because Alexander's campaigns were so successful in the military and political sense, I was left wondering why the tone was such. And then having to figure it out - without a clear path to do it with. There were easy but false explanations, like "Alexander's problem was that his love/hate relationship with his parents screwed him up" - that just made the issues more difficult to understand.

Stone tried to do this with his entry into Babylon

That message just didn't come across to me with any illuminating clarity.

those shades of Tarn's "Brotherhood of Mankind" which is historical hogwash

I could certainly have done without that - just another factor to muddy the waters and it *felt* anachronistic.

Even my own academic father wrote a scathing review and mentioned that Stone had bought into that.

Where is that published? I'd like to read it. How lucky you are, to have a scholarly father!

The problem is probably whether or not it should even have been mentioned.

I thought not - or at least, my conention is that the movie should have picked a strong theme and stuck to it. Each added theme that was raised and dropped made the flow of the story more difficult to follow or relate to on an emotional basis.

I think he knew audiences would walk in looking for a romantic Alexander -- and he wanted to turn that around.

That is probably right. And what I wanted was a romantic Alexander, and I am happy with just about any kind of Alexander at all - no, wait, I draw the line at Leonardo diCaprio. That aside... I am at least prepared to be tolerant and take the movie on its own merits; I just think Stone failed to succeed in establishing either a romantic Alexander or a counter-romantic one. He created an Alexander who was as much a mystery to me after the movie as before.

Keep in mind that none of this spoiled my enjoyment of the movie; part of my enjoyment is dissecting the movie-making and the history-presentation involved.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_ming/]

The biggest difference is that in the novel, Bagoas comforts Alexander with words as well as sex, talking to him about kingly duties and his own fidelity. The movie Bagoas never says a word in our hearing. I rather liked that.

I rather liked that too! In The Persian Boy, all we have is Bagoas' voice. But I think that if we heard it in the movie, it would have taken a lot away. Francisco Bosch stood in as an icon, a tangible homage for us to pin our Renaultisms onto.

I was surprised that we first encountered Bagoas in Darius' harem.

Hmm. I suppose that I've always just figured that Bagoas wasn't in the harem because it would be, I don't know, uncouth for the almost-male sex toys to be plopped down amongst the females. He couldn't impregnate any of them and eunuchs were in charge of the women, but Renault sort of draws a line; the hot skinny things on this side are viable sexpots who get to exist on the fringes of the "real" world, and the flabby shemales are confined to menial servant roles.

Of course, I don't know a thing about how the Persian court functioned. I like Renault's choice if only because it spares us from the claustrophobic womanly intrigue of the harem.

is he Oedipus, Achilles, Herakles, or Jason?

Ha! Don't forget Prometheus, he might be Prometheus as well. ;)

Was he a great charismatic leader? No. Was he attractive? ...Often.

...and other times he looked like a hairy caterpillar monkey creature. *g*

I liked the movie less the second time around, but I loved parts of it more. As I've said elsewhere, it really just made me want a The Persian Boy movie with virtually everything the same, except a script writer who can write and a director who can, um. Well, direct a bit differently.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Francisco Bosch stood in as an icon, a tangible homage for us to pin our Renaultisms onto.

Absolutely! And even if we were not Renault fans, he becomes a symbol of the exotic east, or of mystery, or of Persian decadence, or of Alexander's ideals of intercultural/erotic understanding, or the goals of artistic expression and peaceful leisure, or whatever. I liked all of those implications. This is a case where his use of a symbol (or of a person as a symbol) worked well.

And I am already complaining because Stone put too many heavy themes into his story: I think he also had way too many characters. To make Bagoas another speaking character would have just made an already-diverse story even looser, more complicated.

And as a Bagoas fan and a Renault fan - Bagoas is far too deep, rich and interesting as a character to be relegated to a small role in a big movie. I thought the degree of inclusion/exclusion was just right.

Mary Renault makes her use of Bagoas' role at the Persian court plausible enough. I find it interesting, that's all.

Of course, I don't know a thing about how the Persian court functioned.

Does anyone? In that era? I suspect not. I suspect most of it is speculation, based on later courts and later cultures.

I like Renault's choice if only because it spares us from the claustrophobic womanly intrigue of the harem.

And because it gives Bagoas more freedom to report to us about what's going on around him, and it makes him unique as a figure. It's something on which he can pin his pride.

Prometheus! I knew I'd forgotten someone last night. Yes, indeed Prometheus. I thought actually that Prometheus was the best allegorical fit of all to Alexander's life, but I also found it a little obscure as to exactly how Stone was making the analogy. I'd have been happy if he'd taken the Prometheus imagery and stuck with it, if he'd made a point of it and shelved the other analogies.

...and other times he looked like a hairy caterpillar monkey creature. *g*

Yes. Actually this was a bit of a problem. I was trying to deny or ignore it but it's there. It not just a problem with Alexander: there were quite a few actors (and actresses) there who looks I didn't like or whom I found unattractive, when it would have been better for the story if I'd liked their looks. This was especially true of the twelve-year-old Alexander, I didn't like the actor's looks - but also Roxana. I suspect Oliver Stone and I have very different aesthetic tastes when it comes to human beings. The ones I thought attractive turned out to be a mixed bag, and not necessarily characters we were meant to like - Cassander, for example, and Cleitus.

As I've said elsewhere, it really just made me want a The Persian Boy movie with virtually everything the same, except a script writer who can write and a director who can, um. Well, direct a bit differently.

I agree absolutely and would add: also a different actor in the Alexander role. Not that Colin Farrell was bad; sometimes he was very good indeed. But he was generally... problematic.

[ifeelfinite.livejournal.com]

I wish JRM had gotten a bigger role than Cassander. Unless Cassander had a semi-big role. Did he?

I can't really make comments on the rest since I haven't seen the movie, so I'll stay out of that ;)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Sadly, no. Cassander has some great moments but I couldn't say he has a big role. There are so many characters that he gets lost in the crowd most of the time.

I hope you enjoy the movie as much as I did, when you do see it, and I hope to hear your reactions.

[youraugustine.livejournal.com]

I wish he'd kissed Alexander at least once.

. . .honestly, I think I could have forgiven the movie almost everything else if he had. (Except the colourswitch after the battle with the elephants. That? That was . . .stupid). It would have made the giving-speeches-to-eachother less glaring, as well - in my experience, people will talk like that to one another (particularly if the other person will sit there and listen), but only if there's that much honest feeling behind it . . .and THAT much feeling does not get expended in a hug.

Alas, not to be. ::sad::

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

only if there's that much honest feeling behind it . . .and THAT much feeling does not get expended in a hug.

Yes. A kiss was so clearly called for that the hug ended up looking false or awkward - not much so, but it put the relationship a bit out of synch when it was quite delightful in other ways. We really needed a kiss! Is that too much to ask - ? I guess so.

[youraugustine.livejournal.com]

Apparently so.

That said, I particularly loved the moment when Hephaestion intercepts Roxana when Alexander is ill/hysterical/whatever that was. It's just in me to wish that all the moments were so shining.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I particularly loved the moment when Hephaestion intercepts Roxana when Alexander is ill/hysterical/whatever that was.

Grieving. Yes. That was a wonderful scene. So typical of the movie - some scenes were just as they should be, others missed by a mile.