Go to the alexander-the-great.co.uk homepage
alexander-the-great.co.uk
Talk about the Oliver Stone movie "Alexander"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

On Troy...
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the Movie - Post Release
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PhillAlexandros



Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:30 am    Post subject: On Troy... Reply with quote

Hello,

I find it amuzing, that Troy completely obliterated the supposed relationship between Patroclus and Achilles, calling them "cousins" which annoyed me to no end, because the term "friend" would have been more intimate and more relative to Achilles' grief when Patroclus died. Who back then really cared about cousins????

However, one thing I LOOOOOVED about Alexander, was Aristotle's remark that Achilles went bezerk on the death of his "lover" Patroclus. And it was this kind of guts that made me like the movie - this kind of truth. Although nothing in the Iliad confirms that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, other sources discuss that they might have been, including I believe one by Euripides, whom Alexander read from often.

Basically ALEXANDER flat out called TROY on its lies about the two characters. And I love that we see in ALEXANDER the similarities to these characters that Alexander created in himself and Hephaistion. And for that, I applaud Oliver Stone's FIRST release of the film....sheer guts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
cindoo15



Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1282
Location: Dallas TX

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very well said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Efstathios



Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both directors massacred history.Ideals like true friendship and admiration of one's spiritual values were diminished to the extent that suited the best to the modern Holywood based american culture.
Troy was not a bad movie.The fact that it was named "Troy" and not Hiliad brings an excuse to the fact that it does not portray exactly the events of the troyan war.
But ATG by mr Stone is supposed to be historicaly accurate according to him.What kind of sick arrogance is that?If this movie is historically accurate then i am Highlander the immortal.

Does it take guts to make a movie like this?These kind of directors do whatever they want to anyway.It's not about guts.It's about stupidity.

If the Holywood movies were based on the ancient greek ethical codes maybe the world would be better.

Read about the "hymns to Orfeus".Read about Lykurgus' laws.Read about Sparta.Then you might begin to understand what kind of relationship was that of Achillees and Patroclus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joanna



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1270
Location: Greece/USA/Italy/UK/

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I have said it before and I'm going to repeat it : " Don't confuse Movies with Documentaries " Exclamation

If you wait to see a movie to find out things in history is the wrong...way. You should open books , instead !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Adriv



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 1144
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Vrettas



Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 52
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Achilles and Patroclus were not lovers. I dont know where people get this from. They were comrades, brother's in arms. If you have even read the Illiad you can see that Achilles was quite the ladies man. Because a man grieves for another man doesn't make them lovers.

In the movie Troy they shouldn't of made them cousins. But the movie was OK anyway
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PhillAlexandros



Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The mention of Achilles and Patroclus as lovers comes from Euripides...I'm not sure which play, or if the entirety of it still exists. But even Renault mentions in in Fire from Heaven. I believe Alexander/Hephaistion were watching a play, or reading that same play when tears were brought to Alexander's eyes.

Basically...it does not come from the Iliad. The Iliad was more war bible (Alexander took it as such) then it was a love story.

And as I've said...the Iliad DID NOT put the two as lovers...Euripides' play did. It's from him that apparently there's a saying "Weep not for him the dead, but weep for me the living, for I have lost my all." that came from Achilles to Patroclus

If Alexander and Hephaistion (Alexander being more attuned, and better informed than all of us on the history of Achilles and Patroclus) danced on the graves of Achilles and Patroclus as a "gift" from two lovers to another two lovers....there's must be something in it.

One should never forget, that Alexander was as much dreams as he was reality...and he loved the relationship of Achilles to Patroclus...and he saw the same thing with himself and Hephaistion. Just as he loved and admired the Sacred Band...for the same reasons (although he destroyed it)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Efstathios



Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"Weep not for him the dead, but weep for me the living"


Has this anything to do with lovers?No.It means that the one who died is relieved and his soul has found piece in contrast with the one that still lives and must endure the difficulties of life.I do not know how you connected that with Achilles and Patroclus being lovers.

Then we have the example of Alexander and Hephaestion dancing around Achilles grave.Your interpretation was that if Achilles and Patroclus were lovers then Alexander wanted to pay respect to these two "lovers" by bringing his own lover Hephaestion to dance with him,so that there would be a resemblance.
My own interpretation is that Alexander admired the friendship and bonding between these two men so he wanted to pay respect to them by bringing his own best friend Hephaestion to dance with him.Because Hephaestion was Alexander's best friend.
So you see it's a matter of interpretation.But we cannot really know what was going on in Alexander's mind.

Two people see some animals with wings flying far in the sky.One says they are butterflies and the other says they are elephants with wings.Since they cannot go any closer to see which is correct if any is correct,they are just speculating.
That is what we do.We speculate about some things because these events are very far from us.That is what Euripedes did.It was his speculation,although i havent read much of his works and i do not know in which way he mentioned this thing.But Euripedes lived many hundred's of years after the troyan war so it is only his oppinion.

Nowhere else something like this is mentioned.

Oh and about the sacred band of Thebes.Alexander admired the sacred band because it was a powerfull military force.Nothing more.He never said that he admired anything else about it.And Plutarch tells us that "whoever thinks that the bonding between the soldiers in the sacred band had anything to do with body contacts,is a sameless person".Again there are various interpretations about the sacred band.If we interpretate the bond that the soldiers had similar to the one that the spartans had "eromenoi" and considering what Plutarch and Lykourgos tell us about this bonds then the sacred band is falsly considered a band of homosexual couples.If we choose to interpretate this by our modern meaning of the "eromenos" word then we are historically incorrect.Unless both Lykourgos in his laws and Plutarch were lying about these things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alexandros_19



Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 1230
Location: Argentina

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PhillAlexandros wrote:
One should never forget, that Alexander was as much dreams as he was reality...


Exclamation How well you put that!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Goldsnail



Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Achilles and Patroclus being lovers doesn't mean that Achilles was no ladies' man. Smile Why should it? Alexander quite surely had relationships with Roxane, Hephaistion, Bagoas... people were less picky then when it came to gender...

Anyway, in Troy Patroclus was not Achilles's brother in arms. He was the annoying little cousin that followed his big hero around. And for THAT I really hate the movie! Patroclus was a great fighter and not a teenage boy. Meh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leonnatus



Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Troy was a good movie but it was not The lliad. Achilles is absent for literally thousands of lines in the poem as he broods with his Myrmidons waiting for Agamemnon to invite him back into the struggle for Troy. Yet the poem is unquestionably primarily about him like those movies that state "with a special appearance by.....' or include cameos by big stars. The movie covered the central relationships with Patroculus and Hector(whom Homer paints as deluded) but with Agamemnon it got it wrong.Achilles wanted to be reconciled with him not in opposition. Which leaves the relationship with Priam. Before that, I think the funeral games that Achilles organises for his dead friend must surely have inspired Alexander to give Hephaestion a similar event when he died. Which means that he interpreted that relationship,Achilles-Patroculus to be in the same emotional bandwidth as his with Hephaestion. Alexander prized The Myths above all else and they are very much *** oriented in tems of emotional impact. And for that reason, I think the sexuality factor is not the key element in comparing the relationships.
Finally,for me, it is how Achilles deals with Priam that may have had the strongest political impact on The Great. In The Iliad the Gods instruct Achilles to return Hector's body to Priam to restore a civilising influence on History.Achilles in doing this must have impressed upon Alexander that sense which he demonstrated frequently during his Quest : Magnaminity in victory. And the movie plays it superbly.That scene with Achilles and Priam in the former's tent shows Achilles transforming seamlessly from contempt for his enemy to empathy and finally nobility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Maz



Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 88
Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

*Claps*

Very well said, I agree with you totally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
cindoo15



Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1282
Location: Dallas TX

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leonnatus wrote:

Finally,for me, it is how Achilles deals with Priam that may have had the strongest political impact on The Great. In The Iliad the Gods instruct Achilles to return Hector's body to Priam to restore a civilising influence on History.Achilles in doing this must have impressed upon Alexander that sense which he demonstrated frequently during his Quest : Magnaminity in victory. And the movie plays it superbly.That scene with Achilles and Priam in the former's tent shows Achilles transforming seamlessly from contempt for his enemy to empathy and finally nobility.

Very interesting observation Leonnatus. Thank you.

Oh yes, it's nice to see you around here. Very Happy Now, if we could just get you to join in with our discussion group about Plutarch, that would be great. You always make good observations about things. I'd like to hear your take on Plutarch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PhillAlexandros



Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is a matter of interpretation...


Still, whether people like to admit or NOT, Macedonians and Greeks a like were notorious for homosexual relationships. Such relationships came from the admiration of the male body, and its "supposed" inferiority. Women were objects of breeding purposes and/or just sex.

So why can't Alexander have "loved" Hephaistion??? Because no source directly says that he "****" Hephaistion on the continual basis???? Why did they need to say such things, when such things were common place??

Truth is...Alexander had sexual relations with Bagoas, might have had lover affairs with young Hector, son of Parmenion, was offered boys at one point or another for his "entertainment" And one thing is CERTAIN...he did not emulate his father, by having numerous love affairs with WOMEN - he had some...but not much.

And no one knows for sure what Euripides said...and being said...do we even know that Achilles existed???? NO. But we do know that Alexander existed...and that Hephaistion existed...and that those two loved eachother, that the Queen Olympias was jealous of Hephaistion, and that Hephaistion was not exiled by Philip. And that Alexander had to practically be coerced into having sexual relations with a women when he came of age, because he might have been "too into men."

Perfect love, according to the philosophers was the love between equals...superior with superior, and inferior with inferior. Men and men, and women and women....the ONLY reason these two clashed was for procreation, if something more hapenned..GOOD FOR THEM...if not..oh well.


Why then I ask...does a conqueror, a war hero, a soldier, a KING have to be heterosexual to retain respect and power in this day and age?????

even Julius Caesar was "every woman's man, and every man's woman."

I hate to break it, but if it weren't for the dehumanizing, hypocritical, and cynical aspects of modern-day religions....most ..if not all of humans today would be inclined to jump over the fence once or twice. But as Alexander in the movie says so well..."Fear is the cause of all our misfortunes" and nothing causes more fear than the lack of an after life, now does it???

Luckily for Alexander..and most other Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Persians...and the such...he didn't have to have our aproval.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Alexandros_19



Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 1230
Location: Argentina

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very well said! I like the spirit you put in your posts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the Movie - Post Release All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group