Monthly Archives: July 2013

Welcome back to this series of posts on Oliver Stone’s Alexander Revisited. We are now an hour into the film, and we pick it up as Alexander makes his triumphal entry into Babylon. Before going any further, though, I must commend to you this comment, which was made in connexion with my last post on this topic. In it, the author displays a knowledge and understanding of the film which far exceeds my own. The comment gives me an opportunity to thank all of you who comment, and indeed, all of you who read The Second Achilles. I am very grateful. I would use more flowery language but I am English and that is not what chaps do.
.
Scenes covered

1. Entry into Babylon
2. Walking through the palace
3. In the harem
4. Olympias’ letter
5. On the balcony

Entry Into Babylon
I wish I knew how to do screen captures so that I could show you the start of this scene. If anyone knows how it is done on the MacBook Pro’s DVD player then do let me know. The scene before us is Alexander’s arrival in Babylon. Riding beside him is Hephaestion. Two things immediately jump out at me.
.
Firstly, the mere fact of Hephaestion’s presence. I don’t speak with any authority here but I can’t believe that Hephaestion would really have ridden beside the king on a formal occasion such as this. Yes, he was Alexander’s best friend/lover, but surely the honour of entering Babylon at the conquering king’s side would have gone to his most senior officer - Parmenion. So, why is Hephaestion there? The answer is simple, really - for the same reason that Ptolemy is in the Royal Tent on the night before the battle at Gaugamela even though in real life he wasn’t at that point one of the High Command: for the sake of the narrative. Ptolemy is in the tent to re-enforce his credibility as the narrator of the story. Hephaestion rides beside Alexander to remind the audience of how close he was to the king, which in turn makes the future scenes (and his death) between them more meaningful.
.
Secondly, Hephaestion’s helmet. It is topped with a white ‘mohawk’ (I’m afraid I don’t know the proper name for this feature) down the middle with two black feathers on either side. I have no idea how historical this helmet design is but I like it nonetheless as it is clearly meant to be a ‘companion’ to Alexander’s lion helmet, with its red mohawk and white feathers.
.
Alexander arrives in Babylon to rapturous applause from the Babylonians. I was a little suspicious of their enthusiasm until I read in Arrian that on approaching the city, Alexander was,

… met by the people of the place who with their priests and magistrates came flocking out to bring him various gifts and to offer to put the city, with its citadel and all its treasures, into his hands.

This is not quite the same as the scene that Oliver Stone gives us but the people’s joy we see therein certainly echoes Arrian’s words.
.
At the end of the scene, the camera rises and we see the famous ziggurat. Wikipedia tells me that it was in a state of decay by the time Alexander arrived in Babylon, and that he destroyed it in order to rebuild the structure. Unfortunately, his untimely death in 323 meant that this project was never completed.
.
Walking through the palace
A most sumptuous scene indeed; very befitting of its location. As an added bonus, we discover that Virgil got his phrase ‘fortune favours the bold’ from Alexander himself! In the bedchamber, Alexander describes himself as the ‘king of the air’. I doubt it was intentional, but wasn’t that one of the appellations of the Devil in Jewish theology?
.
[A moment later...]
.
I have just looked it up. This is what I was thinking of - St Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians 2:2,

… you were living by the principles of this world, obeying the ruler who dominates the air

A round of applause to anyone who can guess which translation of the Bible that comes from (answer below).
.
Philotas tells Alexander that Darius is not worth bothering with.

Philotas … he has no power, Alexander. He is lost in the mountains with no army.
Alexander As long as he is lost, Philotas, he can be believed in.

The truth of this is still very evident in our own time. Look at the example of Osama Bin Laden. He, too, was lost, but still able to inspire Al-Qaeda agents the world over until the American army finally tracked him down.
.
To be sure, Darius’ influence was never so great as Bin Laden’s. Indeed, by the end, he could not even inspire those who were with him, and they assassinated him. Nevertheless, Alexander’s words remain relevant to us in that they recognise that power can lie as much in the person of someone, or the idea that they represent, as much as in laws and so-called ‘legitimate’ authority. I am sure this thought sustained Osama Bin Laden as he made his way from one cave to another.
.
Alexander’s words here also remind me of something that Arrian says,

… when [Alexander] knew his death was imminent he went out with the intention of throwing himself into the Euphrates, in order to disappear without trace and make it easier for posterity to believe that one of the gods was his father and he had gone away to join them.

He goes on to state that Roxane stopped Alexander from fulfilling this plan; in fairness to Arrian I should say that he prefaces the anecdote with a very dismissive comment regarding the writer who ‘had the face’ to tell the story in the first place. Likewise, I do not believe that Alexander would ever have thought of throwing himself in the Euphrates but it is noteworthy that someone thought the story worth making up in the first place. I have to admit, it does rather tally with what we know of the care with which Alexander cultivated his image.
.
In the harem
We move from the bedchamber to the Great King’s harem. Here, we see Alexander exercise his wisdom and clemency in a reactive and proactive way. Firstly, he stays Nearchus when the latter’s desire to acquaint himself with the concubines threatens to get ahead of him. Secondly, he releases any slave or servant from duty who wishes to return home.
.
By the way, if you freeze the frame at 1:03:30 you can see the raised back of Ptolemy’s armour. I presume that this is in order to provide additional protection from sword blows aimed at the back of the neck. It actually reminds me of the head and neck support device that motor racing drivers use to prevent whiplash injuries. It’s a tenuous link, I know, but it struck me (no pun intended) nonetheless as I watched the film.
.
Alexander’s first meeting with Bagoas is followed by a brief glance from Polyperchon (who, again, does not speak), and an unsteady camera shot of Hephaestion. I really liked that; the odd camera angle emphasises Hephaestion’s emotions - who is that person Alexander is taking such an interest in? I’m not sure I like him…
.
As the Macedonians bundle Alexander over, Darius’ daughter, Stateira, makes her entrance to plead for the lives of her family. Except, she mistakenly thinks that Hephaestion is the king and turns to him instead. Alexander is nonplussed for ‘[h]e , too, is Alexander’. It is a great moment, and all the better for having actually happened. In real life, it was actually Darius’ mother, Sisygambis, who made the mistake; I wonder why Stone changed it? So that he could have a younger - and therefore, more beautiful? - woman appear? It’s not as if there weren’t enough in the harem already.
.
When Alexander announces that he will treat Darius’ family as his own, Persian and Macedonian alike are taken aback. The camera cuts to Black Cleitus and Cassander. It is a great moment of tension if you know the story because it represents another breaking of the ways between Alexander and his people. It is worth noting Hephaestion’s nod when Alexander turns back to him. Despite Bagoas, he is ever faithful.
.
Olympias’ letter
Olympias complains to Alexander about being left in Pella while he is in Babylon, and warns Alexander to beware of his friends. Only one person remains free of her poisonous pen: Hephaestion. Maybe she knows that Alexander would not listen to any criticism she did have.
.
On Olympias and Hephaestion, this thread on the Pothos forum might be of interest.

… [a]pparently Hephaistion… received many letters from Olympias where she criticized and threatened him.

I did not know that they corresponded, so look forward to reading that thread to find out more information.
.
On the balcony
Alexander the visionary comes to the fore as he and Hephaestion look over Babylon. The new Great King wants to free his people. I’m not sure of what he means by this - presumably he doesn’t intend to give people charge of their own affairs - but leaving that aside, it is significant that Alexander doesn’t seem to see himself as a liberator but how freeing the people would make him greater than Achilles and Herakles, perhaps even the equal of Prometheus, who gave the world fire. For me, this is typical Alexander - always comparing himself to the greatest and the best, always trying to outdo them. We could see this scene as Alexander displaying proto-democratic tendencies and therefore an example of Hollywood’s inability to keep a character authentic to their period, but with a little charity, I choose to see it more as a very good example of Alexander’s pothos, his yearning to go higher, ever higher, until he is somewhere north of Olympus (which, in geographical terms, funnily enough, is Macedon!).
.
For his part, Hephaestion restates what Philip II told the young Alexander - remember that Achilles and Herakles suffered greatly. As they look towards the Hindu Kush from their vantage point, Ptolemy will do likewise in respect of Parmenion by encouraging Alexander to return home. Both he and Hephaestion get better shrift than Parmenion did or, I think, Philip would have had Alexander been a little older.
.
Hephaestion goes on to remind Alexander that he once said ‘the fear of death drives all men’ and asks him if there are not any other forces in his life. For example, love. This is the third ‘Christian’ moment in the film. Of course, love is not a Christian concept but the way in which Hephaestion is implicitly asking if love does not drive Alexander feels to me too strange a question for him, a pagan, and a politically high ranking one, to ask. For me, the question would be more appropriate in a mediaeval drama rather than one set in antiquity.
.
Read the index of posts in this series here

* The translation of the Bible used is the Douay Rheims

In my previous post on Alexander Revisited I commented on the fact that in his deathbed scene Alexander seemed to be offering his ring to the Persian god, Ahura Mazda. A commenter on my Facebook Alexander page (here) has suggested that he is actually offering it to the eagle that appears throughout the film.
.
This eagle is either Zeus himself or, perhaps, the Aetos Dios (Eagle of Zeus) which functions in Greek mythology as both a symbol of the king of the gods and as his servant. Whichever interpretation we go with, the eagle’s presence in the film is meant as a sign of Zeus’ approval of and support for Alexander’s mission. It’s no wonder, then, that as they approach the seemingly impassable Hindu Kush, Alexander asks Ptolemy in concern, ‘where has our eagle gone?’. Has Zeus deserted him?
.
I like the idea of Alexander offering the ring to the eagle. The only problem with the idea, though, is that the bird does not appear in the deathbed scene. Does it appear at the end of the film? I’m not going to fast forward to find out. Feel free to tell me; otherwise, I’ll find out at the end of the picture. Certainly, it would make perfect sense for Alexander to offer back to his divine father the power that he felt his father had given him. Now that I think about it, that sounds rather Christian, doesn’t it? I’ll come back to this thought, later.
.
Scenes Covered

1. Olympias’ Bed Chamber
2. In the Palestra
3. Mieza
4. The Taming of Bucephalas
5. In the Caves at Pella

Olympias’ Bed Chamber
Following the brief scene in the infirmary we are transported back to Pella ’20 Years Earlier’ - 351 BC. To the surprise of no one who knows anything about the historical Olympias, it begins with her playing with her pet snakes. The scene takes a surprising turn, however, when Olympias plays a brief but very tender game of hide-and-seek with her son (38:25 ff) as she walks round the bed curtain. If you had asked me why Olympias wants the best for Alexander before I had watched this scene I would have said simply because she is ambitious and she hates Philip. Her love for Alexander, however, is expressed so clearly and absolutely in this moment that I would now say that while yes, she is ambitious and hates Philip, I think she genuinely wants the best for Alexander. A mother who didn’t would not have thought or cared to to play that simple yet highly meaningful game.
.
Speaking of Philip the mood turns sour when he breaks into the bed chamber. I complained in the last post about how Olive Stone had treated Parmenion. Well, I have to say, he does a real hatchet job on Philip, too. He insults, and tries to force himself on her. Only Alexander’s and the snakes’ presence cause him to step back - briefly. I am not an expert on Philip but I do not recognise this version of him. If Stone was capable of giving us a more nuanced Olympias, I really don’t know why he could not have done the same with Philip.
.
In the Palestra
As the scene cuts to the young Alexander, now twelve years old, wrestling in a Palestra; the elder Ptolemy tells us in voice over that he believes it was ‘in friendship that Alexander found his sanity’. It is no accident, I think, that as he says this, the camera closes in on Alexander wrestling Hephaestion. Alexander had other friends, of course, but whether or not we regard them as being lovers, he had no friend like Hephaestion.
.
Brian Blessed leads the wrestling class and we see him walk around giving advice to the boys. At the beginning of the next scene, the elder Ptolemy reminds us (in voice over) of the famous saying that Alexander was only ever beaten once - by Hephaestion’s thighs. I rather like Blessed’s comment to the young Ptolemy, however, when he reminds him that in order to fight well he doesn’t ‘need to eat every day or until [he is] full’. I can’t help but feel that this is a nod to the fact that the later Ptolemys (from Ptolemy II Philadelphus onwards) were often overweight.

Ptolemy II and his sister-wife, Arsinoë II

Mieza
In a way, this scene - where we see Alexander and his friends being taught by Aristotle - is a difficult one to respect as it is less about the individuals present and more about Aristotle’s thought and examples of Greek prejudice in the middle of the fourth century BC. Thus, we hear a lot about the importance of reason ruling over passion, and effeminate Persians.
.
To be fair, Stone does use this scene to set up Alexander’s decline later in the film. For example, the philosopher tells Alexander and his friends that the Persians’ ‘slavish devotion to their senses’ causes them to ‘castrate young boys such as yourselves for their sexual pleasure.’ These words are met with dismissive laughter. Clearly, when Alexander gets into bed with the eunuch Bagoas later on, we are meant to see this as an example of his Medising, going native. Curiously, although in the context of the film this is a bad thing, leaving aside the fact that Bagoas is a eunuch, many people will today think that a expression of same-sex love is a good thing. It is good that we are challenged to see Alexander’s actions as his contemporaries saw them and not as we (might) do.
.
I think there is also in this scene a subtle acknowledgement of the nature of Alexander’s relationship with Hephaestion. When Hephaestion asks Aristotle if a man can love a woman equally he dismisses the possibility out of hand on the grounds that women (unlike men) are slaves to their passion. It is not hard to imagine Hephaestion taking this thought away and allowing it to inform his later romantic choices.
.
Before Hephaestion’s question, Stone has Cassander ask the awkward questions about Achilles’ excessive behaviour and the possibility of his love for Patroclus being ‘a corrupting one’, which makes Alexander look askance at him. As I said in the previous post, if Stone had implied at the end of the film that Cassander was responsible for poisoning Alexander this would have been another step along establishing him as Alexander’s nemesis but he doesn’t, so the potential conflict goes nowhere.
.
The Taming of Bucephalas
This lovely scene is faithful to what really happened (as I remember it, that is) in respect of how Alexander managed to tame Bucephalas, the horse who was afraid of his shadow. The scene does manage to be a little anachronistic in that Stone places Philip’s future wife, Cleopatra Euridike in it. No date is given for the taming of Bucephalas* but as Alexander is still a young boy we can assume it is before 346 when he would be ten. From the look of him, I think 347/8 would be about right. Anyway, Philip didn’t marry Cleopatra (who took the name Euridike after marrying him) until 338/7. Yet, here she is, with her uncle Attalus in tow, already his wife several years earlier. The reason for Euridike’s and Attalus’ appearance is to introduce the divisive figure whom Alexander will confront at the party a few years later. This is the kind of change that one can allow because it helps the narrative. It’s a shame Stone didn’t limit himself thus (I’m still sore over his treatment of Philip, and about to get sorer…).
.
In the Caves at Pella
After Philip and Olympias’ confrontation in the bed chamber there won’t be many people who will be cheering for the king by the time he takes Alexander to see the cave art. And after his misogynistic screed in this scene (“It’s never easy to escape our mothers, Alexander. All your life, beware of women. They’re far more dangerous than men… [Olympias] makes you weak.” and so on) even fewer will be supporting him. A big shame. Neither Philip nor Olympias were perfect. If anything, Olympias committed the worst crimes.
.
I mentioned at the start of this post the curiously Christian nature of Alexander offering Zeus his ring. As Philip leads the young Alexander out of the cave, having depressed himself it seems more than the boy with his crash course in how Men hate the gods but are condemned to be dealt ever harshly by the immortals, he tells his son that, “[o]ne day, things will change. Men will change. But first, the gods must change.” Truly, Philip is a prophet. I’m all for foreshadowings of the future but it would be good if they were rooted in the present moment (of the character’s life). Casting Philip as a kind of prophet doesn’t really sit well for me. What he says would more appropriately (for me, anyway) come from Alexander who, as I have said before, did help the spread of Christianity by his spread of hellenism.
.
* Plutarch places it in 344. I know that Alexander was never very tall but I can’t believe he is as old as 12 in this scene
.
Read the index of posts in this series here

I did not have an interest in Alexander the Great when Oliver Stone’s biopic opened in 2004 although from what I have read since I know that it was not a success. Three versions of the film now exist - the cinematic, a Director’s Cut, and Final Cut (“Alexander Revisited“). Of these, I have only seen the Final Cut, and it is this version that this and the succeeding posts will be based on. Wikipedia tells me that a fourth version of the film was shown at a film festival at the beginning of July this year. We wait to see if it will make it to DVD and will improve the film.
.
Scenes Covered

1. Opening sequence
2. Alexander’s Death in Babylon
3. The elder Ptolemy’s Framing Narrative
4. Looking over the battlefield at Gaugamela
5. Alexander’s Council of War
6. Alexander’s walk through the camp
7. Sacrifice of the bull / marching soldiers
8. Alexander encourages his men
9. The Battle of Gaugamela
10. In the infirmary after the battle

Opening Sequence
The opening sequence of the film for me encapsulates what Alexander was really about - the creation of a new order; the fusion of Greek and Barbarian. I am intrigued to know, though, whose face it is that appears first. I would like it to be Cyrus the Great as Alexander had a deep respect for him. Interestingly, we see Ahura Mazda rather than Zeus - a nod, perhaps, to the view that Alexander ‘went native’ during his travels, although as far as I recall he never worshipped the Persian god.
.
Alexander’s Death in Babylon
The first scene takes place in 323 BC as Alexander lies on his deathbed, surrounded by his generals. Nearchus begs him to name his successor. Alexander doesn’t reply as he holds his ring up, seemingly as much to the image of Ahura Mazda on the fan above him as to one of his officers. Seconds later, Alexander dies; his ring falls to the floor and smashes. It is a neat way of indicating that no one ever did succeed him.
.
In having Alexander unable to speak, Oliver Stone is following Arrian who says that Alexander could not speak for the last hours of his life. Arrian, however, doesn’t mention any ring. Diodorus and Curtius do, though, saying that Alexander handed it to Perdiccas. They also say that when asked to whom he would give his empire, Alexander said ‘the best/strongest’.
.
Going back to Stone, it is ambiguous as to whether Alexander cannot or is simply unwilling to speak as his final act seems to be to offer his ring to Ahura Mazda, whose image is on the fan above him. To be sure, I don’t know if he is trying to offer the ring to the Persian god. It makes no sense for him to do so as - to the best of my knowledge - Alexander had no devotion towards him. The other thing that is very notable in this scene is the presence of the Bagoas as he tries to cool Alexander’s brow with a flannel. Alexander liked the eunuch, perhaps loved him, but I can’t help but feel that the generals would never have allowed Bagoas near the king at the end.
.
The elder Ptolemy’s Framing Narrative
At Alexander’s death, the film jumps forward by forty years to 285 BC where we find an aged Ptolemy in his Alexandria palace dictating his memoirs. His narration in the film is very useful as there is a terrific amount of time and action that the film must cover.
.
Hollywood loves any opportunity to include an anachronism so naturally we see the completed Pharos lighthouse in the port (its construction was not finished until the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus [283-246 BC]). There is also a straight-out historical mistake: Ptolemy says he is the ‘last [Successor] left alive’, which wasn’t true. Both Lysimachus and Seleucus outlived him. By-the-bye, as I recall, neither of these two appear in the film.
.
My favourite moment in this flash-forward is when Ptolemy refers to Alexander being worshipped as a god by the Egyptians; Anthony Hopkins delivers the line with a wry laugh as if to suggest that this was a silly proposition. It was a laugh that only come from a close friend.
.
Looking over the battlefield at Gaugamela
As the camera pans over the Arbela battlefield, a caption appears on the screen to inform us that we have gone back forty-five years in time to 331. Before I continue, I wonder if you noticed the date discrepancy above? The film correctly places Alexander’s death(bed scene) in 323. The caption that appears as the Alexandria scene begins explicitly states that it takes place forty years later in 285 BC. But 40 years after 323 should, of course, be 283 (the year of Ptolemy’s death). In this latest scene, the film correctly states that the Battle of Gaugamela is taking place in 331 ’45 years’ before the scene with the elder Ptolemy. But 45 years from 285 takes us to 330. Obviously if we count from 283 the discrepancy is worse.
.
Alexander’s Council of War
I really enjoyed the informality of this scene, and the way in which Alexander refers to ‘my brave Parmenion’ and ‘unbreakable Antigonus’. Whether or not he would have spoken like that in real life, his doing so here fits perfectly with what we know of his love of Homer. Speaking of which, there is a discrepancy between the dialogue and subtitles when Cassander refers to how Alexander sleeps with Homer’s tales of Troy under his pillow. By ‘tales’ he certainly means Homer’s Iliad. But let’s look at how the subtitles render Cassander’s dialogue,
.

Alexander I didn’t cross Asia to steal this victory, Cassander.
Cassander No, you are too honorable [sic] for that. No doubt influenced from sleeping with Tales of Troy under your pillow.

.
As you can see Tales of Troy has become a proper title. What is wrong with calling The Iliad by its name? Unless the subtitlers have misunderstood what the script said I fear Oliver Stone dumbed down for the audience here. On another point - you will have noticed the American English spelling of ‘honourable’. It may be compared to the Virgilian tag line at the start of the film, which is given to us as ‘Fortune favours the bold’. This switching between British and American English is echoed in the elder Ptolemy’s map which contains names in both Latin (Ægyptus), and Greek (Heliopolis).
.
I referred above to anachronisms and mistakes in the film. I suspect the former are allowed so as to help the viewer place scenes (“There’s Pharos - we must be in Alexandria”) while the latter are either genuine errors or deliberate ones that are allowed for the sake of the narrative. For example, neither the aforementioned Cassander, nor Antigonus and Nearchus were present at the Battle of Gaugamela yet here they are. Why? I think there must be something in their characters that made Stone prefer them to, say, Lysimachus and Seleucus who were present but who, as mentioned above, don’t appear in the picture. For my part, I don’t think the three add anything to the story. If Stone had decided to go with the theory that Cassander helped poison Alexander his presence would be understandable but as he doesn’t it doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
.
During the course of the council, we see Polyperchon. He really like that he has no lines, simply nodding or shaking his head instead of speaking. Given what a lonely, and rather unloved by all and sundry, figure he turned out to be during the Wars of the Successors I really liked this interpretation of him as being present but in a sense cut off from the unfolding action.
.
Alexander’s walk through the camp
There really was an eclipse on the night before the battle at Gaugamela so seeing it here was a lovely touch; as was - on a more frivolous level - Alexander’s conversation with Craterus, and his gobby subordinates. Having said that, given that Craterus was a senior officer in 331 (he had commanded the infantry on the left wing at Issus) he should have been in the Royal Tent. There is a rather confusing moment when, as one of Craterus’s men makes a joke about his tightfistedness, Alexander replies, “Who needs gloves when you come from grace?”. What exactly does he mean here? It appears to be a quasi-Christian statement (much like the one Arwen is made to say in Fellowship of the Ring) but that is impossible. Unless, of course, it is another anachronism. Leaving that aside, the subtitles call Parmenion’s Number two ‘Crateros’. It really should make its mind up which language it prefers!
.
Alexander’s brief walk - an early acknowledgement of how close he was to his men in the early years of his campaign - gives us his first extended scene with Hephaestion. Stone uses it to introduce the idea that Alexander saw himself as Achilles and Hephaestion as Patroclus. The image of Hephaestion that we are given in this scene is the one that I think most of us retain after watching the picture - loyal, detached, a bit soft, perhaps even drippy. I shall come back to why this is not the full picture, though, shortly.
.
Sacrifice of the bull / marching soldiers
Religion was very important to Alexander so its good to see his seer, who I presume is Aristander, here. Even better is the ambiguity of the scene. As Aristander checks the bull’s innards to see what they say, he looks up in a very concerned manner - as if he has discovered something unsettling. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, he says nothing to the soldiers crowded round him.
.
Alexander encourages his men
Alexander rallies his men with stirring words regarding their past heroic deeds while Darius remains silent amidst his. When Bessus and Pharnakes do speak it is only to agree with what the Great King says; such a contrast to the argumentative Macedonians!
.
I particularly like how we only see the end of Alexander’s speech to his men rather than hear it. He was never an orator, but rather, a man of action. In the seconds before we see him ride into battle it is appropriate that his words give way to his person, which is what the Macedonians were really fighting for. .
I could not help but notice Alexander’s movements on Bucephalas versus Darius’ stillness as he stood in his chariot. As with their speech/silence, their movement/stillness act as good metaphors for the different styles of kingship that they both exercised.
.
The Battle of Gaugamela
Does Darius’ silence and stillness contrast badly with Alexander’s words and action? In a way, yes, but it also gives him a terrific dignity. Dignity, of course, was what the Great King was all about - albeit dignity to the point of ossification.
.
Anyway, on with this extended sequence of the film. I have watched Alexander Revisited several time, and watching this battle never gets easier. The chariot scythes in particular are a terrible sight. One thing that I would love to know, however, is what did the Macedonians do if more than one man ran into their sarissa? Were their bodies easy to remove from it without breaking the weapon?
.
The battle’s realism is emphasised by the shaky camera work that Stone adopts. Something that I think works against the film’s realism is its insistence on making Parmenion, Alexander’s antithesis. It seems to be that every time he appears he speaks only to say something contrary to what Alexander wants. In the Royal Tent it was he was the main opposition to Alexander’s proposed battle strategy; and when he sends Philotas to get Alexander’s help, he also tells him to avenge his death if Alexander doesn’t come. 2300 years later, it would be nice if Parmenion was rehabilitated. He would never have become Philip’s and Alexander’s most senior officer if all he did was argue for the opposite of what they wanted.
.
Two final points - about Cleitus and Hephaestion. In the course of the battle, we see Cleitus save Alexander by cutting off his assailant’s arm with his sword. This actually happened three years earlier at the battle at the Granicus River. And anyone who thinks that Jared Leto’s Hephaestion is soft (see above) has to contend with the brief but still very powerful scene at 32:21 in the film where he screams madly as he stabs a Persian to death. It is a very short (seven or so second) reminder of what kind of man Hephaestion really was - a warrior, a very tough one at that.
.
In the infirmary after the battle
This is a very short scene that emphasises again Alexander’s connection to his men. In real life, he walked among them, asking their names and encouraging to boast about their deeds. Due to time constraints, no doubt, we don’t see this here, rather, it is a few encouraging words to the dying soldier who is then killed (i.e. ‘euthanised’) with the ancient Greek version of a misericorde.
.
As you can see this has been a long post. Much longer than I intended, but we have covered over half an hour of the film. In the next post, I’ll be looking at the flash-backwards (if that is a word) of Alexander’s youth, and his singularly aw(e)ful parents, Philip II and Olympias.
.
Read the index of posts in this series here