Hacker Cinema
Alexander
2004 · Film · 176 min
Directed by Oliver Stone
WarHistoryActionAdventureDramaRomance
Alexander, the King of Macedonia, leads his legions against the giant Persian Empire. After defeating the Persians, he leads his army across the then known world, venturing farther than any westerner had ever gone, all the way to India.
3 negative1 mixed2 neutralfrom 6 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
6 comments on Hacker News
> OpenAi paid Sama $12/hr for the work and they in turn paid their employees $2/hr.
This kind of shit really boils my piss.
I did extra work on the Alexander movie in Morocco. There was a pay disparity between what the local production company were paying Westerners vs what they paid locals [1]. I'm almost 100% sure the production company paying the local company would have been paying the same price for both.
[1] - this isn't even the half of what was wrong with the situation; they were filming during Ramadan, so the locals couldn't eat/drink/smoke anything during the daylight hours and made to stand around in the blazing sun. One old lady fainted. The production company asked the Westerners to please try and keep out of sight whilst drinking/eating/smoking between takes, but then at the same time telling us we can't move from our spots lest we break continuity. Towards the end of filming it almost turned into a riot due to the bad treatment of the locals. Total joke.
I forgot almost all of the movie but the portrayal of the Gaugamela is breathtaking. They could do better job with Persian equipment.. but Alexander's cavalry action was awesome to see. Also it showed well just how terrifying phalanx advance was. I was reading Xenophon recently and I thought it did awesome job showing why most other troops just ran when confronted with that.
> If you haven’t seen “Alexander,” staring Collin Ferrel and Angelina Jolie, you may really enjoy it.
That’s interesting, because Alexander is the one movie I truly regret not having left during the break. I found it boring, incoherent and in parts (especially Angelina Julie’s parts) really annoying. But to be fair, I watched it with German synchronisation. Perhaps that is to blame.
I'm sure they can figure out the history well enough to depict it, or punt on the accuracy. They probably figured it wouldn't be a popular enough setting for the intended audience.
It's been done a few times. Prince of Persia was set in a fantasy land without a real attempt at historical accuracy, but it was sorta Sasanid Persia. Similarly, Aladdin in Iraq. There was also the 2004 Alexander which was quite accurate, but it wasn't a good movie. And Lawrence of Arabia, sorta fictionalized but accurate in spirit, which was the best.
300 was interesting cause they made it clear the story was being told from the Greek perspective by having Dilios narrate it, and he hyped it up even more than the actual Greek historians did, instead of the movie presenting it as a factual view. The movie still pissed off the Iranian government, but whatever.
What's interesting that you see this come up in places in cinematic period pieces like Takeshi Kitano's Zatoichi remake, Oliver Stone's Alexander, the shows _Rome_ and _Spartacus_ on HBO. We _should_ have seen this in Zack Snyder's _300_ as well (Spartans allowed for same-sex relations in older/younger male mentorships in their warrior-aristocracy training, much of the lifestyles of Spartan citizens would be prohibited from being depicted) but that movie chose to be a historically inaccurate Triump of the Will of the straightest of straight male masculinity.
This movie is made by Oliver Stone right? Judging by prior work like The Doors (Jim Morrison) and Alexander (Alexander the Great) I don't have high hopes.
Oliver Stone likes to destroy characters on the big screen paying attention to the flaws rather than the charisma of his charactes. Jesus, I didn't remember a single battle scene from the movie "Alexander" and this guy went from Greece to India on horse battling his way out. He is considered one of the biggest strategic minds in history. He was the only leader I recall who changed the faith of battles consistently by making swift, unexpected moves with his cavalry hitting the enemy where he least expected it. Being gay[2] is not the reason why Alexander was named "Great".
[1] In the case of Alexander he admitted that it was a huge failure, but I'm not sure if by failure he and I mean the same thing, probably not.
[2] Sexual relationships amongst men were a very natural thing in ancient Greece, especially between soldiers. Indeed Alexander was married twice AFAIK.