MovieChat Forums > Alexander the Great (1956) Discussion > How much of it is true? Why glamourize m...

How much of it is true? Why glamourize murder?

posted 13 years ago by standrkm
11 replies | jump to latest

How much of the story of Alexander the Great is fact? You see films like this and it's so weird how these leaders always look so noble and courageous. They say, "we're going to war with so and so, and the people cheer". He doesn't even have to give a reason but the people and soldiers go hell yeah let's murder those people and take their resources, "lets CONQUER them!". No one really every opposes or asks why. You never see the fatherless or widows crying, they just take their fathers murderer's hand and go about as if they have a new boss.

You just know that back then the king had to really sell the war to the people first. He had to create some kind of desperation, some kind of propaganda and you never see that. I seriously doubt these great leaders rode their horses like vanguards into the enemy's ranks. How wise would that be to do so? The most likely hid far behind the ranks and watched it all unfold wisely giving orders as their men fought for their greed. I like sword and sandal movies but a lot of them always show emperors and kings as if they are the hand of god wiping the filth off the earth and conquering people like it's for the betterment of humanity.

In this film we see Alexander fight his own people just to see who is fit to lead his people, that doesn't make sense. I don't even know how you could persuade men to do that, but he raises his arm and his men kill each other like it's the funnest thing since jump rope.

I love sword and sandal movies like Cleopatra, Ben Hur, Spartacus, but the only thing I really liked about this film were a few lines Burton said. One was something like "to take land you must win the hearts of man", and the final line where he is dying and his men ask who will lead, he says "the strongest". Maybe I have it all wrong, but I don't think his people loved him as much as most films portray. I think it was probably just fear and when he died I don't see why anyone would be saddened by it. What's amazing is how people were scared of his power when they were the source of his power, his divinity. He was a great murderer, a dictator, if he were around now he would be called Hitler the Second. I feel the same way about Caesar and how he murdered the Gaul's.

Sorry, I just find it strange how hollywood always seems to glamorize this type of behavior in film. I wish someone would make a film that showed the harsh truth. Robin Hood 2010, The Duchess 2008, and King Arthur 2004 showed a little of that but never really went in depth of how sinister and corrupt the royals are and how they manipulate the minds of the populace.
Speaking of the royals, why does anyone even care about or find today's royal family interesting?

"If reincarnated,I'd return to Earth as a killer virus to lower population levels."
-Prince Phillip

[–] ashleytate 13 years ago

I know it's a lot of work but perhaps you could find better answers to your questions in, say, a history book than on IMDB forums?

[–] standrkm 13 years ago

True, but the fine people at IMDB can help me just the same.

Soldiers are dumb stupid animals used as pawns in foreign policy
-Henry Kissinger Sec Of State

[–] inanytime 11 years ago

You assume that the Op is not aware of the places where they can look for factual information.

You disregard the fact that people who come to this board are likely some interest in the historical events depicted in the film, and are good candidates for discussion of any sort related to this film.

History books don't provide discussion space, and people may not want to search for and join history forums just to comment on a film they watched.

Your reply really serves no purpose than to put the Op down, hence it's bad for the forum.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

Your reply really serves no purpose than to put the Op down, hence it's bad for the forum.

Just possibly when an OP claims that ...

If reincarnated, I'd return to Earth as a killer virus to lower population levels.

... other posters might be justified in querying whether he is really searching for answers in the right place.🐭

[–] standrkm 9 years ago

Sorry, but I actually wrote that as a quote from Prince Philip. For some reason that entire post seems to have gotten very scrambled up, but I'll try and fix it.

"the day I tried to live, I learned that I was alive"

[–] Kammurabi 11 years ago

I'd say some of the motivation is in a keyword you used briefly: fear.
The people likely feared too much for their lives to voice any opposition to even the most frivolous of the king's whims.
It was dark and desperate times. It is the flavor and color that we can't really fully grasp from written history so we can only imagine. Life was cheap and few lived into their 40s yet they snatched and clawed at their moments of life just as much as we would do now.

I'm glad you mentioned Hitler because I also see similarities there. Aristotle taught Alex to be a little (s)hitler no question about it. Hitler obviously wasn't the first to push superior race propaganda. Most tyrants through history rationalized cruelty and absence of reason by using various props like that. There is always some macguffin that a government or monarchy or dictatorship uses to pave the way to accomplish less than noble or honorable agendas.

It is true, Hollywood glamorizes all but those who public opinion would slam them for glamorizing. People love a hero now just like they've always loved a hero. Kings can take thrones by manipulation of men who cherish the idea of a hero who will improve the lives of the populace. It is then rare the king/ruler who maintains power with the same heroic and benevolent image.

Also it is interesting that the human race is doomed unless a large percentage of the population is more immediately doomed. Lowering population levels is probably our only hope to survive.
Some of those dark and desperate times will be coming back either way. Who will be the new Alexander/Hitler then?

.

[–] dollyrockerx3 11 years ago

Not trying to justify any dictator or murderer but one interesting fact about Alexander the Great is that, while Hitler's dream was for the German race to be the only race, Alexander wanted to blend the different races of his regions. He encouraged settlements of Greeks to start families in the foreign regions he conquered, believing that this would create peace and a homogeneous peoples. Like I said, not trying to condone any dictator, but I do believe Hitler was far more sinister.

[–] fredgarv79 9 years ago

I think you are looking at from a 20th century perspective. look, this was 300 B.C. A looong time ago. This is what people did back then, they conquered territory. they built empires, life was short and brutish. you mention caesar, yes, technically he was a mass murderer. but to him and in that time, it was simply a way to get ahead, further your career by doing a military campaign. you could also argue that rome brought things like the theater, baths, commerce, roads, "civilization" to the gauls and brought them out of primitive existence of say just killing each other off in inter tribal battles. I would not compare the ancients to hitler who murdered entire races just for being jewish,roma or homosexuals and even handicapped people. Hitler had the benefit of 2000 years of further history and advanced civilization to draw from and yet still acted as an evil murderer. In alexanders time, it was kill or be killed. if he didn't invade the persian lands, they would have invaded the greek lands and wiped them out.

I dont' think hollywood glamorizes in these great epic films, they just show it.yes they hamm it up a bit for sure but alexander was really quite an amazing person. also, it has been written down by historians, that alexander indeed did ride into battle and fight along with his men, unlike most generals. I would suggest you read a good book on alexander's history. He truly was an amazing man. Ceaser thought himself a failure in comparison cause he didn't do as much as a young man.

[–] standrkm 9 years ago

Thank you for the reply, it makes total sense. In those days there were only a few options for men and this is what men did. Fighting was their past time and war was their 9-5.

"the day I tried to live, I learned that I was alive"

[–] fredgarv79 9 years ago

yes, in the roman legion if you managed to survive for 20 years, the roman government would give you title to a plot of land, a sort of a pension. if you were a gladiator, if you managed to survive, you could gain your freedom and be a type of celebrity. and contrary to common belief, they didn't always fight to the death at all. what was really bad was all the animals they slaughtered in the arena's. thousands and thousands of loins, elephants, bears, etc but again they thought nothing of it, after all, to them they were just beasts with little value. today you look at it and it's just this horrible horrible thing. But there is one writer that we know from then, Seneca, who wrote down how disgusted he was at the gladiatorial games

[–] standrkm 9 years ago

yes we can't even imagine how life must have been when evil spawn like commodus, caligula, and nero, ruled

"the day I tried to live, I learned that I was alive"