Oliver Stone, Historian? Don't Make Me Laugh!

He's a FILM MAKER people!

Film makers HAVE been known to take small to considerable license with the facts when making films of historical events, and people.

You want total, or at least reasonable, accuracy, and detail, watch a documentary, or wait for a mini-series.

I once read two excellent takes on the true life of Alexander the Great, and how Oliver Stone selectively portrayed him.

As I wrote in my review of the film Alexander:

To trash a bio-pic from the perspectives of what you approved, or disapproved, about the subjects life, and culture, makes little sense to me. ( I've felt this way about the various Life of Christ films over the years too )

Ol' Alex lived in a harsh world with different religions, and morals than ours, and what went on then shouldn't be judged too harshly by our disapproving standards....

Critics, from Ebert on down, are overanalyzing, nitpicking, and letting their feelings about Stone get in the way of enjoying an entertaining film. Their confusion, and disappointment, isn't the fault of the filmmakers.

Victor David Hanson is one of at least two writers to take great exception to the historical inacuracies of the film, and take the time to enlighten us about the true Alexander.

Well, I thought it was simply terrible. The film goes on for nearly three hours, but we hear nothing of what either supporters or detractors of Alexander, both ancient and modern, have agreed were the central issues of his life....

we are beginning to see, that all for all the protestations of artistic excellence and craftsmanship, Hollywood has become mostly a place of mediocrity, talentless actors and writers who spout off about politics in lieu of having any real accomplishment in their own field.

The full piece is here: Culling From Among the Mediocre in Hollywood: A short review of Oliver Stone's Alexander the Great.

Wretchard, of The Belmont Club, really went to great lengths to explore the REAL Alexander, and it paints a complex picture of who, and what, he was.

A lot of it isn't pretty, and makes you wonder why Macedonians, and especially Greeks, are so keen to claim him as one of the greats in their historical pantheons.

I guess it has a lot to do with the BIG PICTURE. The effect of his actions, and policies, on the world of his time, and the world that came afterward.

There is no dispute that that WAS considerable.

Wretchard wrote ( and includes a few useful links ), among other things:

A sense of the wealth of information that is omitted -- and which VDH knows is omitted -- can be glimpsed from the incident of mass mixed marriages. Some management theorists, going a little deeper than Oliver Stone, have regarded the incident as the first recorded instance of a merger in history. Others have characterized it as the first stumbling steps towards modern multiculturalism....

it is Darius I sometimes feel for. There is evidence he was a decent man, something in the mold of a Jimmy Carter, and he had no chance against the dynamic and ruthless Alexander....

Hollywood may have calculated that none of this was important; that the sole point of interest of a population weaned on the tabloids was the earth-shaking question of whether or not Alexander was gay.

The full piece is here: Alexander and Darius

Lighten up fellas, grab some popcorn, and juju beans, lean back, relax, and indulge in a little escapism.

It won't kill you.

Honest! :-D

Victor David Hanson is one of at least two writers to take great exception to the historical inacuracies of the film, and take the time to enlighten us about the true Alexander.

Well, I thought it was simply terrible. The film goes on for nearly three hours, but we hear nothing of what either supporters or detractors of Alexander, both ancient and modern, have agreed were the central issues of his life....

we are beginning to see, that all for all the protestations of artistic excellence and craftsmanship, Hollywood has become mostly a place of mediocrity, talentless actors and writers who spout off about politics in lieu of having any real accomplishment in their own field.

The full piece is here: Culling From Among the Mediocre in Hollywood: A short review of Oliver Stone's Alexander the Great.

Wretchard, of The Belmont Club, really went to great lengths to explore the REAL Alexander, and it paints a complex picture of who, and what, he was.

A lot of it isn't pretty, and makes you wonder why Macedonians, and especially Greeks, are so keen to claim him as one of the greats in their historical pantheons.

I guess it has a lot to do with the BIG PICTURE. The effect of his actions, and policies, on the world of his time, and the world that came afterward.

There is no dispute that that WAS considerable.

Wretchard wrote ( and includes a few useful links ), among other things:

A sense of the wealth of information that is omitted -- and which VDH knows is omitted -- can be glimpsed from the incident of mass mixed marriages. Some management theorists, going a little deeper than Oliver Stone, have regarded the incident as the first recorded instance of a merger in history. Others have characterized it as the first stumbling steps towards modern multiculturalism....

it is Darius I sometimes feel for. There is evidence he was a decent man, something in the mold of a Jimmy Carter, and he had no chance against the dynamic and ruthless Alexander....

Hollywood may have calculated that none of this was important; that the sole point of interest of a population weaned on the tabloids was the earth-shaking question of whether or not Alexander was gay.

The full piece is here: Alexander and Darius

Lighten up fellas, grab some popcorn, and juju beans, lean back, relax, and indulge in a little escapism.

It won't kill you.

Honest! :-D