Did you weep when there were no more film version worlds to conquer, Caroline?

Question

Hi Caroline been meaning to ask you as I know
that years gone by you had a deep-rooted passion
for this historical figure - namely that gay guy who tried to take over the world, Alexander.
Did you get to see the movie (with Colin Farrell,
not the 1956 version) at all? I've had it stuck in my 'must watch DVD' pile for a while as I never got
to view it on the big screen, and I, for some reason, only managed to get through about a third of it before reaching for the remote to turn it off and move onto something else. Having watched Gladiator, Troy,
King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven, etc... I found
much of a muchness running through the visual
experience. Big stirring speech to all the CGI
armies before valiantly charging forward against
a bigger CGI army (although I have to say the
first battle did give a good rendition of how confusing the battefield can be to get a grip on strategy of the minute from the perspective of the leaders).
There's a certain amount of predictability (someone's going to bend down and either pick up a handful of dirt or run their fingers through the long grass/wheat in a meaningful but metaphoric pose) in each of
these movies, which on some levels is fine, but in others leaves a lot of substance out. I know it's
about the "big picture" with all the gee whiz/shock and awe to get bums on seats to suppliment the popcorn and soda sales, not to mention the moveable parts
collectable toy at McDonalds as a historical keepsake, but are we better served with any other cerebral nourishment from these filmic adaptations of historical figures?

Not that I'd want a documentary of any kind, but knowing you spent many years getting to know Alexander, I guess your view of this amazing man and his world differs from Joe Public perspective of what's entertaining, or for that matter, Oliver Stone's take on Alexander. Can informative
in a historical manner of what we know of this figure live in the same Hollywood world?
So.. did you ever get to write the screenplay? I guess there's always Hallmark if the fire still burns.
Paul :-)Nz

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Having watched Gladiator, Troy, King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven, etc...[/nq]
I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" last night. Again, decent talent and lots of money, all wasted. I don't know what it is about these historical "epics." I think the directors get caught up in the history and the spectacle and forget that the story should be about people or rather a person.
Possible spoilers...
What really killed this movie for me (among many things) was the "make believe" factor in Balian's (Orlando Bloom's) life. He's a blacksmith, the *** son of a baron. His father comes back for him, gives him a three minute sword lesson and voila' he's an undebatable knight. Couldn't they have, at least, played a series of shots showing his training, or something? In "Braveheart," when William Wallace returns, you know he has come back with a great deal of training and knowledge. But before the battles you get to know him, as a person, not as a historical figure. A lot more depth real subplots, not tacked on attempts...
Ah, it's not worth going into a lot of detail.

RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]undebatable knight[/nq]
undefeatable... (Didn't watch my spell checker close enough.)

RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

Usenet · Answer

Hi, Paul! What a surprise to download and see my name. How's NZ? Glad to see you back.
You got a lot farther watching "Alexander" than I did. A couple of trailers convinced me it would be painful in the extreme, and why subject myself to that? But... I don;t think it is all the filmmaker's fault. I've had the same problem with Troy, and just about every major epic done in the last decade well, make that century! that has to do with ancient times. Now that I stop and think about it, I have less of a problem with the silent film version of "Ben Hur" than I do with the 21st century version of "Alexander." hmmm... interesting.
For me the problem boils down to, "taken out of context." A filmmaker doesn't have the time to educate an audience about how vastly different such "social institutions" as homosexuality or slavery were in those times than they are today. In Alexander's time, and especially in Athens, and among the elite class, bisexuality was more the norm than it was an abberation, and Alexander was educated from early youth by Aristotle. And every morning of a battle day, when a soldier woke up, whether footman or general, he knew that by sundown he would be one of three things: richer, dead, or enslaved. Even the institution of slavery itself is so different in modern minds as a result of the black trade of colonial American times that it is no longer understood by the general public.
So my conclusions is that some things just aren't "translatable" as movies. I think it was Joe Myers (but I could be way wrong) who initiated a discussion of who is/was funny in another thread. Lenny Bruce is one of the comedians mentioned. I think society has changed so much in the last fifty-plus years that I'm not convinced that someone who wasn't at least a teenager then can fathom the impact and shock that Lenny Bruce's comedy had on his world. From this distance it's probably equally accurate to describe Bruce as a "social reformer" as it is to describe him as a comedian. So if it's that difficult to present Lenny Bruce in a movie "in context" to today's audiences, how difficult is it to present someone like Alexander after two thousand three hundred and whatever years?
I thought about a novel. That gives you time and space to introduce the reader to things as you go along. But Mary Renault did a pretty good job of that in her Alexander "fiction" trilogy, and in her biographical book to historically expand on the trilogy. I still have a passion for Alexander. He stares back at me every day from a plaque by the Istanbul Archaeological Society I bought the last time I was in that city. I've stopped having painful emotional twinges when I hear or see him presented from "another viewpoint." He has mellowed in my mind to become something like an old friend you would go to visit on a long trip a long time ago.

You knew your friend, you knew his family, you knew his friends and the circles he moved in, but you also know that the friend you knew is not the same as others knew. And that's pretty much how I feel about Alexander today.

Caroline
Who generally avoids epic headaches by avoiding epic movies.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi, Paul! What a surprise to download and see my name. How's NZ? Glad to see you back.[/nq]
NZ's fine - literally. A bit of cloud today, but none-the-less, a very favourable
Summer in place.
[nq:1]You got a lot farther watching "Alexander" than I did. A couple oftrailers convinced me it would be painful in ... problem with thesilent film version of "Ben Hur" than I do with the 21st century version of "Alexander." hmmm... interesting.[/nq]
I found Troy to have as much substance as the CGI. Everything seemed by the numbers
and the dialogue appeared to be rewritten a million times to ensure the screenplay stayed
within as few a pages as possible. It was probably one of the few movies I even thought
about the screenplay as I was unconvinced of the performance or portrayal of the main
characters. Which in a way is ironic as probably some thouseand years ago the Greeks
would have made a far better dramatic production of it. They might struggle with our
lifestyle though
[nq:1]For me the problem boils down to, "taken out of context." A filmmaker doesn't have the time to educate an ... asa result of the black trade of colonial American times that it is no longer understood by the general public.[/nq]
Good point. Some difficult subjects to contemprise for today's audiences who are fairly well coccooned in the social morays of 21st century living and living with. Then again - that is the writer's/filmmaker's challenge to be able to use their voice to get that connection/empathy finely tuned in artistic fashion for watching. Did you think Mel Gibson's part in THE PATRIOT was too PC as an employer of free black men and women, and not as slaves? Was he the exception to the rule of those times for his open copmpassion? Did you buy any of it?
[nq:1]So my conclusions is that some things just aren't "translatable" asmovies. I think it was Joe Myers (but I could ... to today's audiences, how difficult is it to present someone like Alexander after two thousand three hundred and whatever years?[/nq]
Or for that matter anyone else not of this generation. I guess it all comes down to the basics of finding what drives the character. Whether we witness an event or we become part of it for just a while with that good old suspension of disbelief thanks to the efforts of the writer and its translation to screen.
[nq:1]I thought about a novel. That gives you time and space to introduce the reader to things as you go ... friend you knew is not the same as others knew. And that's pretty much how I feel about Alexander today.[/nq]
Well, there's never enough novels, given that writers are still finding interesting
and entertaining things to say about King Arthur, so Alexander probably hasn't reached his full quota of readability yet.
Paul :-)Nz

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi Caroline been meaning to ask you as I know that years gone by you had a deep-rooted passion ... did you ever get to write the screenplay? I guess there's always Hallmark if the fire still burns. Paul :-)Nz[/nq]
Speaking of Alexander, I just caught some of the Richard Burton version on TMC.
That thing makes the Oliver Stone version look like a real movie, it's so bad.
People seem surprised that the recent crop of big-budget historical epics are lousy.
This isn't an aberration. It's a tradition. Big Budget historical epics are pretty much always lousy.
Even the ones that have a decent reputation, like "Spartacus" or "Ben-Hur" when you get right down to it they suck.

"The Ten Commandments" deserves a special MST3K treatment, it sucks so bad.
Even when respectable directors take a shot at it, the results are bad.
Robert Wise did, "Helen of Troy" sucked.
Howard Hawks did, "Land of the Pharoahs" sucked.

These big budget Biblical/ancient historical epics all pretty much stink on ice.
I think that historical pieces that take place within the last few centuries can sort of work. It's not that they're more accurate, necessarily, it's just that the unavoidable anachronisms that are at the heart of all of these movies somehow work they're not so glaring.
Every movie about people in history inevitably makes a fundamental compromise it recasts "them" as "us." It attempts to view history through a window of contemporary culture and ideology. Heros in the past have to be not merely heroes in their own context but heroes as *we* imagine heros to be as possessing the qualities that make for twenty-first century heros. Villains have to be villains as we* understand villains not as *they understood them.

The problem is at a certain distance from the present, the dissonance between the essential modernity of the characters (or, if it's a movie made, say, in the thirties, or fifties the essential "thirties-ish" or "fifties-ish" quality of the characters) and their presumably ancient environment just sets off every *** alarm in our heads.
NMS

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]These big budget Biblical/ancient historical epics all pretty much stink on ice.[/nq]
I thought "Braveheart" was an exception to this rule. Otherwise you aren't going to get much of an argument from me.

RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

Did you weep when there were no more film version worlds to conquer, Caroline?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions