Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > History in Films and on Television
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

History in Films and on Television History in Films and on TV - Documentary Films, Historical Dramas, and history programs on PBS and the History Channel


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 29th, 2016, 05:54 PM   #1

Waterloofinalsolution's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2015
From: moxicoism
Posts: 115
Is the amount of hate for Oliver Stone's Alexander (2004) movie justified?


Oliver Stone consulted with many different historians to try and convey Alexander's history the most authentic way possible. Colin Ferrel underwent months of physical and mental training to prepare for the role.

The amount of pre production in itself was long, drawn out, and extremely meticulous to try and bring to life the most authentic presentation of Alexander the Great as possible to the big screen...

So how could this movie have failed? How could so many historians regard this film as a failure? I just do not get it. If this was true, and the film was inaccurate, then were the historians assisting the production team on the film's narrative on drugs or something? It just doesn't add up...

I feel very sorry for Oliver Stone.

Did you think the film failed from a historical standpoint?

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Waterloofinalsolution is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 29th, 2016, 09:51 PM   #2
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Utah
Posts: 152

I think Olympia was a good representation by Angelina Jolie.
Utah Jay is offline  
Old December 29th, 2016, 11:54 PM   #3

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 1,991

I enjoyed the movie.

The battle scenes were outstanding! Especially Gaugamela. But he tried to put to much info for the available minutes that the movie had. Than he lost countless minutes in homoerotic scenes that in my opinion where made exclusively to shock some parts of the audience.

There is already a good and recent thread about the movie with a link to an outstanding review… couldn’t find it…
Tulius is online now  
Old December 30th, 2016, 08:40 AM   #4

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 18,106
Blog Entries: 19
Italians haven't noted this ...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah Jay View Post
I think Olympia was a good representation by Angelina Jolie.
Oh well, Angelina is always a good choice.

This said, regarding the movie ... I don't know. Italian historians haven't noted all this oddities or mistakes in the movie.

It's a movie, you know, so a certain level of interpretation or even interpolation is acceptable [think to the Gladiator ... so appreciated at Hollywood ... are you sure it was so historically accurate?]. I cannot say if the exposure of the homosexual tastes of Alexander can have played a role in this negative feedback. But ... history is reality. If Alexander was bisexual or even totally homosexual ... this doesn't make him less "great".
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 08:50 AM   #5

Pedro's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: On a mountain top in Costa Rica. yeah...I win!!
Posts: 15,840
Blog Entries: 2

Stone has a Midas touch; everything he touches turns to Stones agenda.
Pedro is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 01:56 PM   #6

Waterloofinalsolution's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2015
From: moxicoism
Posts: 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
Stone has a Midas touch; everything he touches turns to Stones agenda.
It's funny how many historians will go to great lengths to diminish hollywood except for Kubrick's historical films.

There were countless historical errors in Barry Lyndon but some historians still agree that it was the most historically accurate movie ever made. Here are some errors to name a few

1. Lab in boat when Barry was fishing (Not a breed until around 1900)
2. Steam train on map
3. In the first battle one of the British Soldiers can be seen with an 1873 45/70 Trap Door Springfield Rifle.
4. Rapid firing without reloading. The British tactics during the skirmish were not accurate at all. French soldiers fired, British soldiers didn't, they just rushed in combat
5. Lady Lyndon's makeup wasn't accurate at all. The purple blush and the eyeliner all made her look 70s.
6. Narrator says "About this time, the United Kingdom was in a state of great excitement.. " The United Kingdom came into being in 1801
7. The flags shown in the scenes of Barry's service in the Prussian army are from three different regiments.
8. When Barry and Lord Bullingdon fight a duel, a coin is tossed to determine who shoots first. When alternate shots are taken in a pistol duel, the challenged always shoots first and the challenger shoots second. Barry should have shot first followed by Lord Bullingdon.
9. Captain Potzdorf and Colonel Bulow have mustaches in the film. No officers in the Prussian army wore facial hair, with the exception of hussar (light cavalry) officers.


With that being said, my point is that I think there were less historical errors in Alexander but Barry Lyndon's credibility is much higher in the list of most accurate period films.

Last edited by Waterloofinalsolution; December 30th, 2016 at 02:06 PM.
Waterloofinalsolution is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 05:27 PM   #7
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,889

Technically, the Lord outranks Barry - due he is a nobleman, so he has the noble right to shoot first
kazeuma is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 06:56 PM   #8

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 1,798

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterloofinalsolution View Post
Oliver Stone consulted with many different historians to try and convey Alexander's history the most authentic way possible. Colin Ferrel underwent months of physical and mental training to prepare for the role.

The amount of pre production in itself was long, drawn out, and extremely meticulous to try and bring to life the most authentic presentation of Alexander the Great as possible to the big screen...

So how could this movie have failed? How could so many historians regard this film as a failure? I just do not get it. If this was true, and the film was inaccurate, then were the historians assisting the production team on the film's narrative on drugs or something? It just doesn't add up...
]
Some historians didn't like it perhaps?
Lord Fairfax is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 08:28 PM   #9

seneschal's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: California
Posts: 980

I personally enjoyed this film, but I remember critics saying that it was hard to follow since the chronology of the film tended to jump around, which could be confusing. That was their main problem with the film.

But based on what I know about the film making process is that often times the director's desired way of presenting the film gets changed by the producers. (Deleted scenes that are cut from the theatrical release) This was the problem with another film, Kingdom of Heaven. The threatrical release although good, was inferior to the director's cut. The director's cut of that film was so much better.
seneschal is offline  
Old December 30th, 2016, 08:34 PM   #10

Waterloofinalsolution's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2015
From: moxicoism
Posts: 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by seneschal View Post
I personally enjoyed this film, but I remember critics saying that it was hard to follow since the chronology of the film tended to jump around, which could be confusing. That was their main problem with the film.

But based on what I know about the film making process is that often times the director's desired way of presenting the film gets changed by the producers. (Deleted scenes that are cut from the theatrical release) This was the problem with another film, Kingdom of Heaven. The threatrical release although good, was inferior to the director's cut. The director's cut of that film was so much better.
I agree
Waterloofinalsolution is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > History in Films and on Television

Tags
2004, alexander, hate, justified, movie, oliver, stone



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oliver Stone doc antiquarian History in Films and on Television 25 November 12th, 2015 02:21 AM
Alexander (of 2004, Oliver Stone fame) Salah History in Films and on Television 39 September 19th, 2014 09:44 PM
JFK Assassination Movie. By Oliver Stone, conspiracy theories & the media Cat Daddy American History 42 August 15th, 2014 12:22 AM
Untold History of USA- Oliver Stone Collingwood History in Films and on Television 72 September 10th, 2013 07:57 AM
Oliver Stone's 'Alexander Revisited' gavinlee Ancient History 51 December 20th, 2012 06:34 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.