alexander-the-great.co.uk

[Tiamasp]

If anyone thinks Oliver Stone's remake of "Alexander" is historically accurate, they need a basic lesson in history.

The ancient Achaemenid Persian empire has a fascinating and spectacular history and I encourage everyone to make it a point of learning about this fascinating period of world history in your leisure time, since it is not taught in schools.
I hope people are not dumb enough to think that "Alexander" is an actual depiction of history. Oliver Stone, unfortunately, like the rest of Hollywood, is an uneducated Jew.
Alexander's war against the Persian Empire lasted for years and there were many battles and encounters between the Greek/Macedonian barbarians (which in this film are depicted as "civilized") and the mighty Persian empire.
Also, contrary to the film "Alexander", it is a well known fact in informed circles that the Persians had, centuries earlier, brought an end to oppression and slavery and had introduced freedom to the territories they annexed during their reign of the known world. They had freed slaves after conqueering Babylon, etc.,(including jewish slaves - which I'll bet Mr. Stone doesn't know anything about) and brought an era of peace and stability to the known world at that time. This "Golden Age" all came to an end, for ever, with the Alexander's barbarian invasion. Alexander masacred entire cities with crusfications numbering in the tens of thousands in Tyre and Persepolis alone. The surviving women and children were taken as slaves - thereby re-introducing slavery which had been brought to an end by the conquering Persians, two centuries earlier.
The film incorrectly centers on Babylon, and also fails to show the wanton massacres, looting and destruction of the magnificent Persian cities and palaces of Persepolis (Parsa) and Suza. It also "Arabizes" the Persians and the Persian military, in typical, politically charged, Hollywood style
Don't get me wrong though, I didn't expect anymore than this from Hollywood so I can say that (the trailers) were not a total disappointment.

[joanna]

Tiamasp, I hope you realised that you posted on the wrong forum

It's ok. Nobody is perfect

[LEONIDAS]

IF YOU DIDNT LIKE THE MOVIE WHY EVEN COME HERE?? MY ADVISE TO YOU IS DONT COME BACK QUIT WHILE YOUR AHEAD!!!!

[WingNut13]

News flash, Tia: movies are FICTION.

D'oh.

[Slobadog Melosivec]

Well in the end the confusing fact is that almost everybody in history seems to liberate and oppress. Even at the same time.

[Savanna]

[Tiamasp]

[Tiamasp]

[Kevin]

[Nell]

Tiamasp, I'm sure you think you're being very realistic. Your opinion is just as valuable and valid as anyone else's, so you've the right to speak your mind. But then so have I.

First of all: If you are preaching about historical accurancy in movies you have a busy life ahead of you, because Alexander's not the worst of its kind at all.

Second: Oliver Stone never said that the movie was historically flawless. NEVER. I don't know where you are getting that idea. It's been said about the movie that is an interpretation so why should you even care? If you're gonna care about stuff like that best start bashing "King Arthur" with all your might, because that movie literally claims to be historically accurate and isn't. You're wasting your energy here. Especially saying that "Alexander wasn't presented as fiction". You know, you should write all the directors in Hollywood to let them know they have to lable their movies "ANY RESEMBLANCE TO HISTORICAL EVENTS IS COINCIDENTAL, THIS IS FICTION". Seriously, if you're bothered by the little implication that Stone's Alexander might be like the real Alexander, you need to rearrange your priorities in life.

Third: If you are talking about historical accurancy in general, as an expert, then you must also acknowledge that NOBODY KNOWS THE TRUTH. Oliver Stone's not the only one. You weren't there, either, in the 4th century B.C. "Historical accurancy" is a very vague and relative term. And you know that just as well as I do if you are as well read as you present yourself. Nobody knows exactly what was what in history, we base our views on sources that are incomplete. For all we know, some of the views YOU have on history are incorrect as well; we'll never know, and we don't judge YOU for that either, do we?

Fourth: I think your swing-in is quite insulting. "Anyone who thinks Oliver Stone's Alexander is historically accurate need a basic lesson in history"? You're here on a forum with people who have studied Alexander for years, with historians. We're not stupid, believe it or not. Nobody ever said we think Stone's vision is the truth, we just acknowledge that some parts of the movie are historically accurate, and we celebrate that because that's very rare in Hollywood. To start your post with such a harsh, nearly insulting line is not necessary.

Fifth: If you're going to complain about Oliver Stone's leaving out the massacres, then that's just bitter. Everyone has their own view on Alexander, on how cruel and/or romantic he was, and if you'd want to capture all sides of Alexander the Great in a movie the movie would be a neverending movie. And people are already complaining about the length right now. Oliver Stone doesn't portray Alexander as a saint who never had blood on his hands, he doesn't portray Alexander as a flawless human being, but yes he DOES focus on the sensitive side of Alexander the Great and leaves out the massacres. That's an artistic choice. Obviously Stone wanted to stress Alexander's brilliance and character more than how many people he's killed. But I'm sure you would have done it all differently, that's your right.

Sixth: Calling Oliver Stone an 'uneducated Jew' on a forum that is DEDICATED to his work is like entering a church screaming you don't believe in god. It is your right to think of Oliver what you want but there's no need to be so harsh on him on a forum like this. If you wish to judge people harshly that's your thing, but that doesn't mean you have to tell us about it like that.

Finally: I hope this isn't too moronic for you.

[Adriv]

WOW
Well at least Tiamasp made Kevin to come out and talk

[Adriv]

Like I always say.... they are two kind of people, those who love Alexander and those who hate him. Nothing in between.

[Nell]

Oh WingNut I hadn't seen you around here Nice to see a farmiliar face! *hugs WingNut*

[apelles]

I can,t add much more to Nell,s articulate and accurate assessment.
Oliver Stone attempted the virtually impossible,out of love and respect for his subject.It,s not for us to arrogantly condemn that brave attempt unless we could do better.I certainly wouldn,t know where to start on the utterly daunting task of bringing the stupendous life of the most complex,enigmatic man in history to the screen.
I don,t think anyone could realistically call people here ignorant or moronic and I think it,s very discourteous to do so.Most of us have been studying Alexander for years and are well aware what the historical sources have to say but that doesn,t prevent us from enjoying the movie as a piece of art.

[Nell]

Thanks, Apelles, for adding that

You mentioned the exact words I'd been looking for; arrogance and discourteous. We're not stupid, we just enjoy a piece of art and don't need to bash it to feel like we know something.