The Prostitution of History > Persian > Oliver Stone?

[patrice]

I just watched Oliver Stone's movie about Alexander the Great for the first time. I had passed it by the last few years, because punidts said it is boring. It's structure is difficult with all of the jumping around in time. The sound-track is MUDDY! (Why are so many characters given Irish accents?) And I haven't sorted out what Stone is saying about homosexuality yet. But I'm wondering about only one fact right now.

I don't want to engage in a semantic cha-cha about who is a greater or lesser prostitute than Oliver Stone. I reserve that **evaluation** (not moral judgement) for myself, but I need more facts.

I know the scene in which Alexander rallies his troops before their first big battle with the Persian army (as he invades Persia) is a fabrication, but I am wondering how valid the script-writer's description of the difference between the Macedonian army and the Persian army is. "Alexander" says the Persian army is there because their King commands them and the Macedonians are (a Volunteer Army) there by choice. As Understand it, armies of the time ran financially on plunder, so the Macedonians "chose" to be there for plunder right? Was that an economic necessity of the time?

[Cleita]

1. I think the first armies to be actually paid were the Roman legions.

Prior to that armies were tribal or citizen armies. Mostly they were farmers etc., and nobles who would come to the defense of their king or chieftain if another king launched a raid upon them. When a king asked for invasion, then it was for plunder. The Persians from what I understand were slaves mostly and couldn't disobey the king. Of course the spoils of war were what drove both forces.

Anyway, I'm a bit sketchy on this so I'm sure other better historians will fill this in for you.

[patrice]

2. The distinctions are probably not as clear as I am making them.

The movie isn't even that simple, one of the reasons it wasn't well received.

[Cleita]

3. Although Stone's version was more historically accurate

than the version with Richard Burton, I think both versions misunderstood the nature of Alexander and who he was. They should have read Mary Renault's history of this king who was even unusual in his time.

[patrice]

4. I will look for Renault's book.

I will be thinking about the difference between historical fiction and fictional history.

[Cleita]

5. There's two of them. The non-fiction history is called

"The Nature of Alexander". The other the fictional novel I forget the name of but you'll find it in the library I'm sure. I think Renault wrote several books about Alexander because she became facinated with him.

[patrice]

6. Thanks!

[MrPrax]

7. I liked some parts...

the battle scenes were pretty good inasmuch as they tried to authenically show warfare at that time...I also liked the fact he 'scarred' up his actors 'overtime'.

But I got the feeling that Stone was treating the whole thing as not so sly metaphor of another Father/Son team with designs on the Middle East (wonder who he might talking about?). But it doesn't work...

But the Narrator (forget the chars name -- played by Hopkins) is good -- he goes from a huge supporter of Alexander in the beginning, but as he narrates and relives the memories, he comes to hate Alexander and his foolish adventure/ideas (wonder who he might be talking about?)...

Stone also wants to I guess explode myths about Alexander -- the problem to this, is you have to have an audience that KNOWS the myth, before you can explode them...it's doubtful many filmgoers (myself included to an extent) have total recall about Alexander, geography, early Greek mythology, Philip 2 (his dad), Agamemnon, Achilles, the Ptolmeys, etc etc etc etc etc in the first place...so it's confusing.

The 'monkey' tribe bit was funny --

But yeah...it's junk, a mess, too much --