Alexander

[Nilats]

I wonder what people thought here of the movie "Alexander" with cutie Colin Farrell in the lead role. As well as Angelina Jolie and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. This may be surprising to some, but for ancient times, I consider Alexander the Great to be a pretty progressive figure for his times: He encouraged the Greeks/Macedonians to embrace the Persians and later on Asians as equals, married a Persian woman, gave the defeated Persians back their land and titles (who proclaimed loyalty to him of course) and wanted to unite the world under a more progressive, open government.

Through his leadership he was able to summon the most courage from his men and his role as the leader of the Greeks proved decisive against weak and corrupt enemies. Alexander was a dreamer and for the backward times he lived in, could be described as progressive.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:18 pm
I wonder what people thought here of the movie "Alexander" with cutie Colin Farrell in the lead role. As well as Angelina Jolie and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. This may be surprising to some, but for ancient times, I consider Alexander the Great to be a pretty progressive figure for his times: He encouraged the Greeks/Macedonians to embrace the Persians and later on Asians as equals, married a Persian woman, gave the defeated Persians back their land and titles (who proclaimed loyalty to him of course) and wanted to unite the world under a more progressive, open government.

Through his leadership he was able to summon the most courage from his men and his role as the leader of the Greeks proved decisive against weak and corrupt enemies. Alexander was a dreamer and for the backward times he lived in, could be described as progressive.
Are you even fucking serious? :blink:. You think a rampid imperialist, from a system that supported slavery, and other evils, was progressive?

Alright then, you have fun explaining that to the rest of the crowd, ;) .

The movie;

It was alright, didn't like farrell in that god awful wig thing though.

[Wanted Man]

Progressive by ~330 BC standards. Anyway, while I find the man an interesting historical figure, that movie sucked out loud. They basically narrate some of the most important events of his life away(or make crappy flashbacks out of it later), and then jump straight to Gaugamela! And it's not even for time concerns, because a lot of time is filled with boring psycho-babble, love scenes, Alexander getting drunk and kissing boys, etc.

They should have cut that shit out and replace it with more interesting things. Also, what's with the Persians in the Gaugamela scene? They're depicted as a bunch of barbarians who don't use any tactics. Kind of unimaginable that such people created an empire that could wage war against Greece. Totally unrealistic.

[Marukusu]

Also, Alexander's pillage of Persepolis wasn't shown (only the seizure of the persian Shah's palace/harem if I recall correctly).

[Lenin's Law]

Well if we're talking about the movie, I'd say it's all right, I'd give it a better review than most critics do even though there were flaws particularly with the myriad of different accents (Alexander with an Irish accent? His dad with an American one, other soldiers with Scottish, English accents? come on)I'm generally a fan of most Oliver Stone's movies (Salvador, Platoon) but in this one I found the script in particular to be needing some revising.

As for the real Alexader the Great in history, whether or not he's a "progressive" figure for his time, which is really the crucial part here as no one should make him out to be some progressive leader by modern standards, I think is debatable. I am no expert on this part in history, but I think one can make arguments either way for him being somewhat more forward-thinking for his time period, particularly his treatment of those he conquered were generally more "benevolent" than the standard treatement given in 330 BC. He was the head of a monarchy and his loyalties lay to the nobility and royalty that made up the ruling class of ancient Macedonia. So he was naturally conscribed and limited in what he could do within those material conditions and settings.

I think he probably could reasonably be descrbed as a militaristic but populist general of sorts for his time - he was a conquerer but had his own "unique" way of doing things which, at times, one could say was somewhat more tolerant than the usual way of doing things.

[Patchd]

It was alright, didn't like farrell in that god awful wig thing though.

Oh it was a wig, I thought it was just a shit hairstyle. I saw it on my mate's pirated DVD and so the quality wasn't that good. I hated when they used to cut in and out with Ptolemy as a narrator, and then with what he was describing, and then the flashbacks to Alexander's past. It was shittier than I expected it to be.

[firsty]

worst movie ever. nearly walked out. pissed me off too since i'm 1 degree of separation from the guy who played alexander's father's right-hand man.

i'm an oliver stone, fan, too.

the movie was just horrible. F.

[gilhyle]

Really disappointed - love historical films, even liked Troy, but this ...yawn. As to progressive, the film is surely wrong: all conquerers did that then - there was no choice but to adapt to the culture of the society you conquered.

It also missed two of the more incredible events of Alexander's incredible life - the seige of Tyre ( I think it was Tyre : it ws the city on an islend in the Lebanon area) and the seige of the 'impregnable' fortress on the top of a hilll in Afghanistan ...... guess who won ?

The effect was also very limited. The trade-based empires of the middle east just reappeared.

[Patchd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 07:23 pm
Really disappointed - love historical films, even liked Troy, but this ...yawn. As to progressive, the film is surely wrong: all conquerers did that then - there was no choice but to adapt to the culture of the society you conquered.

It also missed two of the more incredible events of Alexander's incredible life - the seige of Tyre ( I think it was Tyre : it ws the city on an islend in the Lebanon area) and the seige of the 'impregnable' fortress on the top of a hilll in Afghanistan ...... guess who won ?

The effect was also very limited. The trade-based empires of the middle east just reappeared.
i didn't know Tyre was situated on an Island, I knew it was part of the Phoenician and later the Persian Empire but I thought it was situated on land near the coast.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Nobody before at least the 18th century is progressive lol.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:28 pm
Nobody before at least the 18th century is progressive lol.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, I mean people such as Diogenes of Sinope and Spartacus, were progressive and revolutionary, were they not?

[Mujer Libre]

I thought it was an awful film, very hammy and too flashy for its own good. Also, in terms of 'progressiveness' what really matters in today's context is whether it's progressive by our standards- and it isn't particularly. I don't mean to be really harsh- I just think that talking about how great a film is because it depicted someone who was progressive by the standards of ancient times just doesn't make sense to me. Sure, you can appreciate it as a film, but talking about it in (current) political terms doesn't necessarily fit.

That said, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is a beautiful beautiful man- probably the only reason I watched most of it.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 08:47 am
i didn't know Tyre was situated on an Island, I knew it was part of the Phoenician and later the Persian Empire but I thought it was situated on land near the coast.
Tyre was an island, Alexander conquered it by building a causeway linking it to the mainland, hence, it is no longer an Island thanks to Alex.

As for the movie, it had potential, it really did, but it fucked up horribly. Too many things to say, they cut SO much out, I was very angry when his visit to Siwah, for one example, was completely cut right out. The soundtrack is terrible, and for me, soundtracks often make or break movies. It really should have been a two or three part film. The parts of his life that were included in the film are very in line with Plutarchs version of Alexandrian history however, and this film was far better than Troy (also ruined for me by a sloppy soundtrack and Brad Pitt awefulness).

As for Alexander, he was a conquering imperialist pig, and it is largely his fault that we have the western ideal of Democracy (it was supported by slavery then, it is supported by slavery now) and Rationalism that we have today, I allways rooted for the Persians.

I loved how so many people got so freaked out by his subtle hints of homosexuality, yeah, were still in the iron age, make no mistake.

[Dimentio]

It sounds actually as a quite bad historical depiction.

Moreover, the guy do not even look like Alexander. Alexander was a short, bull-like man with tics and a light voice. He was not at all an athlete or an Adonis-ideal.


http://www.uoregon.edu/~arthist/arthist_204/monumentimages/alexander.gif

This was how Alexander looked according to the oldest known statue of him.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 07:11 am
It sounds actually as a quite bad historical depiction.

Moreover, the guy do not even look like Alexander. Alexander was a short, bull-like man with tics and a light voice. He was not at all an athlete or an Adonis-ideal.


http://www.uoregon.edu/~arthist/arthist_204/monumentimages/alexander.gif

This was how Alexander looked according to the oldest known statue of him.
Art often does not accuratly represent the model. Do you think an artist would paint a portait comminsioned of royalty and make the person foul?

So yes, that is how alexander looked according to that statue which could be highly inaccurate.

I really dont care what the guy looked like though.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 09:23 pm
Alexander getting drunk and kissing boys, etc.


What's wrong with that, ya tee-total phobe? It's not a serious docu-drama; it's a fucking American film! Ergo, it sux.