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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 05:23 am (UTC)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.