#docudramas

"The Apprentice"/Trump-Harris debate mashup

Alas, this is a rather complex question. A lot of my thoughts on Hephaistion’s role in ATG’s life are expressed in my published articles (see especially “The Cult of Hephaistion” for his career) and a WHOLE lot of prior entries on Tumblr. I’ve collected some of the more historically focused ones HERE, so you can sort through them by title. 😊

The Netflix series, with which I was somewhat involved, went out on a limb with the representation of ANY romantic relationship between ATG and Hephaistion. I basically warned I wouldn’t be involved if they didn’t call them lovers, although there was a GREAT deal of nervousness about showing it (and potential blowback). And yes, Alexander probably had some sort of fling with Statiera (a point I’ve talked about on Tumblr before). But there was a notable shift in the show from Alexander’s attachment to Hephaistion towards a new one with Statiera. That wasn’t something I liked—nor suggested. I am generally not a fan of love triangles, or at least not that go on a while. I hated the Alexander-Roxane-Hephaistion or Alexander-Bagoas-Hephaistion triangle in Stone, and I didn’t like this one either. They basically ignored that objection. I have no idea where the ATG-Hephaistion relationship will go now that she's dead, but in the last episode, it did not seem that Alexander was open to reviving it. There are also a couple big names missing from the first season that leaves me unclear how they plan to move forward later, especially Philotas, Kleitos, and Krateros. (And yes, I did discuss that with them. Budget.)

I will say that I did approve of their decision to humanize the Persians and show them as cultured in their own right. And they did take my insistence that Persian women had a great deal more agency than Greek (or even Macedonian) women: so Statiera had advising capacities. But the project shifted over time, especially after Netflix got involved and it moved from docudrama, to drama-with-some-docu. They’re interested in selling it. I was interested in the history being at least marginally accurate. But I wasn’t involved once it got to filming, and it was clear they had their own vision of what they were going to do (and not do). When one acts as a historical advisor, the first rule to accept: not my story, not my vision. (Kinda like, not my circus, not my monkeys.) So I simply worked with them in terms of helping correct the more egregious (especially factual) errors.

I'll also add they had a LOT of limitations due to cost; Netflix may have bought it, but that didn't really expand their budget much, so take that into account. I've heard people whine that "Well, but Netflix!" Um, Netflix throws a little money at a lot of things, but a lot of money at only a few things.

My own views on Hephaistion’s role in Alexander’s life (and court) is also embedded in my novels (Dancing with the Lion). So those ARE my monkeys. 😊

If you want my bitching about how Hephaistion is too-often portrayed on screen (and not just the Netflix show), I did this a little while ago:

Videos to Watch if You Enjoyed "Cling Fast"

How Much Booze Did Medieval People Really Drink? - Dr. Eleanor Janega teaches us how to booze it up, White Horse-style.

Could You Make a Living in Medieval London? - Another great Eleanor Janega video about occupations, scandals, and the every day lives of every day folks in Medieval cities.

What Was Life Really Like For A Medieval Peasant? - the last of the Eleanor Janega videos about what kind of life Hob Gadling would have lived before he met his Stranger.

A Tudor Feast - domestic historians and archeologists Ruth Goodman, Alex Langlands, Peter "Fonz" Ginn and Hugh Beamish - under the supervision of Marc Meltonville of Hampton Court Palace's Tudor kitchens - prepare and serve a tudor banquet at Haddon Hall in Derbyshire. Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four

Who Do You Think You Are: Danny Dyer Learns Tudor Etiquette - A segment from the Ancestry.com series following actor Danny Dyer as he explores his royal roots.

Who Would Be King of England Today According to Henry VIII's Will? - chartmaker Matt Baker takes us through the royal family tree from Henry the Eighth to the present day, if his edict that the next monarch in the event that his three children (Mary, Edward, and Elizabeth) produced no heirs, then the crown should next fall to the children of his youngest sister. And not, as actually happened, go to James of Scotland.

Royal Myths: Elizabeth I and the Spanish Armada - Dr. Lucy Worsley talks us through the propaganda and fibs that have sprung up around Good Queen Bess, and whether or not she really did declare that she had the stomach of a king.

Dancing Cheek to Cheek: The Devil's Work - Another great series by Dr. Lucy Worsley, chief curator of Royal Historic Palaces, but this time she's joined by Strictly Come Dancing's Len Goodman. They trace the history of dance in Britain, and this episode features some rowdy Medieval and Elizabethan numbers.

Turn Back Time: Tudor Monastery Farm - This series sees Ruth, Alex, and Peter return to the Elizabethan age, this time spending a year on a farm worked by peasants and serfs in service to the church.

The Tudors' Bizarre 12 Days Of Christmas Ritual - The Tudor Monastery Farm Christmas special.

Hardwick Hall: A window onto the Elizabethan world - Sheffield Hallam University gives a great look at Hardwick Hall (more glass than wall), the estate home of the wealthiest woman in Britain at the time, and the kind of place Hob would have aspired to build.

Tudor Food & Etiquette Explained in 14 Minutes - Quick and dirty explanation of where your napkin goes and who the 'chairman of the board' was.

Tudor Houses Explained in 10 Minutes - Not particularly engagingly presented, but a video chock full of visual examples of different kinds of Tudor houses and buildings.

Modern History: The Knight - Jason Kingsley introduces us to the concept behind Modern History and in particular their first series, “The Knight”. Jason has been fascinated by history his whole life, in particular the medieval period and the life of knights. (This is the first video of a playlist).

Royal Armouries - Elizabethan Swordsmanship - a demonstration by weaponsmasters at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds. (I recommend turning on closed captioning for this one, as the sound was recorded live with no mics.)

Getting Dressed - Tudor Royal Household - a nice, even-paced and well produced video showing what it was like to get dressed in queen Katherine Parr's household.

Dressing Up a Tudor Man - my personal heroes at Prior Attire show us what the blokes were wearing at the time. Keep in mind that this is 40 years too early for Hob and Dream's disastrous Shakespeare-ruined feast. (I recommend turning on closed captioning for this one, as the sound was recorded live with no mics.)

And just for the fun of it:

Medieval Pickup Lines from the folks behind (I believe?) Whores of Yore, and Top Tudor Historian Rates Famous Movie Scenes, wherein Dr Nicola Tallis, British historian and author of three books on the Tudors, rates scenes from five blockbuster movies set in the Tudor period. (I love how scandalized she gets.)

How to Make a Responsible Movie or Documentary about Alexander

I saved this to answer around the time of the Netflix release. For me, there are four crucial areas, so I’ll break it down that way. Also. I recognize that the LENGTH of a production has somewhat to do with what can be covered.

But, first of all…what story is one telling? The story arc determines where the focus lies. Even documentaries have a story. It’s what provides coherence. Is it a political tale? A military one? Or personal? Also, what interpretation to take, not only for Alexander but those around him. Alexander is hugely controversial. It’s impossible to make everyone happy. So don't try. Pick an audience; aim for that audience.

MILITARY:

Alexander had preternatural tactical skills. His strategy wasn’t as good, however, especially when younger. Tactics can be a genius gift (seeing patterns), but strategy requires experience and knowledge of the opposition. The further into his campaign, the more experience he gained, but the cultures became increasingly unfamiliar. He had ups and downs. He was able to get out of Baktria finally by marrying Roxana. That was strategy, not tactics. He beat Poros, then made a friend of him; that’s strategy. Yet he failed to understand the depth of the commitment to freedom among the autonomous tribes south along the Indus, which resulted in a bloody trek south. And his earlier decision to burn Persepolis meant he’d never fully reconcile the Persian elite.

So, it’s super important to emphasize his crazy-mad tactical gifts in all forms of combat, from pitched battles to skirmishes to sieges. Nobody in history ever equaled him except maybe Subatai, Genghis Khan’s leading general. In the end, I think that’s a lot of Alexander’s eternal fascination. He fought somewhere north of 250 battles, and lost none (where he was physically present).

But HOW to show that? What battles to put on screen? Oliver Stone combined three into one + Hydaspes because he had only 2-3.5 hours (depending on which cut you watch). The Netflix series is going to show all four of the major pitched battles…or at least all 3 for the 6-episode first part. They had circa 4.5 hours to play with, but they cut out other things, like Tyre.

Another issue, from the filming/storytelling point-of-view is how to distinguish Issos from Gaugamela for the casual viewer. They’re virtually identical in tactics (and players on the field). So it made a fair bit of sense to me for Stone to conflate them. In a documentary, it’s more important to separate them, largely to discuss the fall-out.

Some v. important clashes weren’t the Big Four. Among these, the sieges of Halikarnassos and Tyre are probably the most impressive. But the Aornos Rock in India was another amazing piece. I’d also include the bridging of the Indus River to illustrate the astonishing engineering employed. Again, if I had to pick between Halikarnassos and Tyre, I’d pick Tyre. I was a bit baffled by Netflix’s decision to show Halikarnassos instead, but I think it owed to an early error in the scripts, where they had Memnon die there. I corrected that, but they’d already mapped out the beats of the episodes, so they just kept Halikarnassos. That’s fine; it was a major operation, just not his most famous siege.

Last, I really wish somebody, someday, will do something with his Balkan campaigns. What he did in Thrace and Illyria, at just 21, showed his iron backbone and quick thinking. It’d make a great “and the military genius is born” set-up, drama wise. But you could use the Sogdian Rock to show the clever streak, at least (“Find men who can fly” … “I did; look up.” Ha) Plus it has the advantage of being where he (maybe) found Roxana.

Last, he fought extremely well--wasn't just good at tactics. Being a good general doesn’t necessarily make one a good fighter. He was. Almost frighteningly brave, so show that too.

RELIGIOUS:

Ya gotta deal with the “Did he really think he was a god?” thing, and the whole trip to Siwah. I obviously don’t think he believed he was a god; it’s one of the things I disliked about the Netflix show’s approach, but they were dead-set on it. I DO think he came to believe he was somehow of divine descent, but of course, that’s not the same as most moderns understand it, as I’ve explained elsewhere. It made him a hero, not a god on a level with Zeus, and to ME, that’s an important distinction that Netflix (and to some degree Stone) rode roughshod over.

But I’d like to see more inclusion of sacrifice and/or omen-reading—religion in general. Cutting the Gordion Knot (omens!). His visit to Troy (Netflix tackled that one). A really cool thing would be to make more of the lunar eclipse before Gaugamela. Again, Netflix touched on that, but it’s one of those chance events that might actually have affected a battle’s outcome, given how seriously the ancient near east took sky omens. (A solar eclipse once halted a battle.) The Persians were freaked out. Even his massacre of the Branchidai in Sogdiana was driven by religion, not military goals. Pick a couple and underscore them.

I give Stone big props for the sacrifice before the Granikos/Issos/Gaugamela battle. It was so well-done, I’ve actually shown it in my classes to demonstrate what a battlefield sphagia sacrifice would look like.

Alexander was deeply religious. Show it.

POLITICAL:

Ah, for ME the most interesting stuff surrounding Alexander occurs at the political level. Here’s where the triumph story of his military victories all went south. He knew how to win battles. He was less good at managing what he’d conquered.

In terms of a story arc, the whole period up to Gaugamela is really the “rise” of the story. Post-Gaugamela, things began to collapse. And I would pin the turn on PERSEPOLIS. Yes, burning it sent home a message of “Mission accomplished.” But he was selective about it. Areas built by Darius I were spared, Xerxes’ were destroyed: a damnio memoriae.

Problem: Persepolis embodied Persia, and ATG essentially shat on it. Not a good look for the man who wanted to replace Darius III. That he also failed to capture and/or kill Darius created an additional problem for him. Finally, his lack of understanding of how politics worked in Baktria-Sogdiana resulted in an insurgency. Bessos was going to rebel, regardless. But Spitamanes might not have. Alexander created his own mess up there.

Another matter to look at is why he created a new title—King of Asia—instead of adopting the Persian title (King-of-Kings). I don’t think that was a “mistake.” He knew perfectly well the proper Persian title (Kshāyathiya)…and rejected it. He adopted some Persian protocol, but not all of it. After the summer of 330, he was essentially running two parallel courts, which seemed to satisfy neither the Persians nor his own men. (Kinda like docudramas are a hybrid that seems to annoy perhaps more than satisfy.)

So I’d like to see this handled with some nuance, but it’s intrinsically difficult to do—even while, if done well, it would be the most interesting part of an Alexander story, imo.

So, what events, what events…3-4 leap out after Alexander’s adoption of some Persian dress. The Philotas Affair, the Pages Conspiracy, the Death of Kleitos, the marriage to Roxana. I’d show it all, although I could also understand reducing the two conspiracies to one, for time, in which case, the Philotas Affair because it resulted in the fall of Parmenion. But the fact there were two, not just one, tells a story itself.

What about the proskynesis thing with Kallisthenes? I’ve come to disbelieve it ever happened, even though it’s symbolic of the whole problem. So, weirdly, I’m of two minds about showing it. OTOH, it won’t be in my own novels. But OTOH, I could easily see why a showrunner or director might want to include it. And it certainly appears in several of the histories, including Arrian.

Then we have the two indisciplines (mutinies)…one in India that made ATG turn around, and another at Opis. They’re really two different things as one was an officer’s rebellion, the other the soldiers themselves. But will viewers be able to distinguish between them? It’s like the Issos/Gaugamela problem, or for that matter, the two conspiracies. They’re similar enough to confuse the casual viewer. “Didn’t we already see that?”

But if they were narrowed to one, how to choose? The mutiny on the Hyphasis provides an explanation for why he turned back. But the Opis event was more dramatic. The man jumped down into the middle of a rioting crowd and started (essentially) knocking heads together! So if I had to pick…Opis. The other might could be mentioned in retrospect.

PERSONAL:

Here are five things I think really OUGHT to be shown, or that I have yet to be pleased by.

1) Philip isn’t an idiot and should get more than 10 minutes of screentime. Oh, and show Alexander did learn things from him. Stone had to make his movie a Daddy-Issues flick, and the Netflix thing did very little with Philip as they wanted to get to the Alexander-Darius face off (which was the meat of their story). But there’s a very interesting love/competition story there.

2) Olympias is not a bitch and was not involved in Phil’s murder, although I can see why that is catnip to most writers. She did kill Eurydike’s baby and (by extension) Eurydike. One of the historians in the Netflix story (Carolyn, unless I misremember) talked about the rivalry between the two wives, at least. But I think ATG planned to marry the widow and Olympias got rid of her to prevent it. Now THAT’S a story, no? But they were in too much of a hurry to get to Persia.

3) Alexander was not an only child! He had sisters (and a brother) with whom he was apparently close…and a cousin who was his real rival. To me, missing that cousin rivalry overlooks a juicy personal/political story! Too often all the focus winds up on Alexander-Olympias-Philip-Eurydike-Attalos, but man, a more subtle showrunner could do a lot with the Alexander-Amyntas rivalry. But he’s constantly cut out. I can’t think of a documentary that actually addresses Amyntas except in passing (if at all)l

4) Hephaistion’s importance is a must, but I’d like to see him treated as someone with a personality and authority of his own, besides just as ATG’s lover. At least Netflix Went There onscreen with the love-story part, but otherwise, the writers couldn’t figure out what to do with him. Neither Stone nor Netflix really portrayed him as his own person. I do understand why they can’t show the whole cast of characters. I had to do weeding myself in the novels, but I’m annoyed Netflix showed only Hephaistion and Ptolemy. Where’s Perdikkas (so important all along really, but certainly later)? Or Philotas, Kleitos, Krateros, Leonnatos, Lysimachos (later king of Thrace)? I think viewers could probably have handled at least another 5 people, especially if introduced gradually, not all at the beginning.

This brings me to….

5) Alexander’s apparently very real affection for the people in his orbit, from personal physician (Philip) to childhood pedagogue (Lysimachos [not same as above]) to Aristotle to various other philosophers. He was so loyal to his friends, in fact, he initially jailed the people who brought word of Harpalos’ first flight.

He needed to be loved/appreciated and wanted to give back to people. Yes, generosity was expected of kings, and as a king (THE king), his generosity had to excel that of anybody else. But he seemed to genuinely enjoy giving presents. I think of him like that one friend who heard you say you liked that cute pair of “Hello, Kitty” socks…then 6 months later they’re your Christmas present from them. Some of his gifts were grandiose, but not always. I love the dish of little fish (probably smelts) that he sent to Hephaistion, presumably just because his friend liked smelts!

To me, point #5 would be easy to get in with a skilled scriptwriter, tucked into the corners of other scenes. It’d be fun to highlight the personal side. If we can believe Plutarch, he was a PRODIGIOUS letter-writer. Also, he loved to hunt, so that’s another thing. And he loved the theatre, and to watch sport. These would all be very humanizing details.

I think the biggest issue is that most of these documentaries/docudramas are done by people who don’t know squat about Alexander aside from a few things, before deciding to make a documentary/movie about him, or write a book. Their research is shallow, and even if they bring on the experts, they don’t always listen. Stone DID at least have a long fascination with ATG, but it caused him to try to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. It wasn't as bad of a film as some have made it out to be, just horribly bloated and for all his reading, he never understood the WORLDVIEW. I wrote about that some while back in my review.

The best documentary/movie would be told by an actual specialist who knew enough at the outset to craft a better, more complex story arc.

Imagine someone wanted to makes a tv series/movie about a historical person/event/time period/..., and they wanted to make it as historically accurate as possible while still keeping it interesting and captivating enough for modern, non-historian audiances. I feel like getting the costumes, events and characters 99% historically correct can be possible. However one thing might be a lot more difficult: choosing what language(s) to use.

Do you go for

A) The actual historical languages that were used (but nobody speaks anymore today). Which would be both the hardest to implement and to reach modern audiences.

B) The modern versions of the historical languages. Which would be easier and more accessible but still a bit limiting.

C) Just do it in English. Which is the least accurate but might reach the widest audience.

Which one would you recommend and which one would you personally prefer (if these are not the same)?

Language and Authenticity in Films about the Past

Several issues face anybody writing historical novels, or making films. I’ve talked about some of these in the following posts:

Writing Historical Fiction (Well): a 5-part series that discusses the challenges and pitfalls of historical fiction. This link takes you to part 1 with subsequent parts linked within.

A shorter post on common ways to approach historicals in film (or narration).

What (I think) needs to be shown about Alexander in an documentary and/or historical film to approach realism. I talk here about some of the attendant issues especially for making a film.

 Now, to your comment about costumes and events 99% accurate…you’d face two very real hurdles:

Funding…that was possibly the #1 problem for the Netflix docudrama. They didn’t have anywhere near the funding they really needed. Just because Netflix funded it, that didn’t make it “big budget.”

Not confusing your audience with a lot of unfamiliar names and seemingly repeating events. It would require judicious “weeding.”

Oliver Stone’s Alexander did quite well, for the most part, on costuming and sets. Yet it failed for two big reasons. First, he couldn’t resist throwing in too much, and a repetitive script, even while skipping material necessary to help an audience understand why the army followed Alexander to the ends of the earth. Second, he didn’t understand the basic mindset of the ancient world, and so imposed a bunch of modern ideas and attitudes. I wrote a fairly in-depth review not long after it came out. It’s still up on my website.

As for languages…

It would be an enormous mistake to try to use ancient Greek, or rather Attic and Doric Greek, Old Persian, Aramaic, Demotic Coptic, Prakrit, eastern Akkadian … etc., etc. That’s what you’re looking at. First, finding somebody able to write a script in all those languages is impossible. No single person reads them all, even among historians. We specialize for a reason. You’d be paying multiple experts to write a script that nobody living could understand—and would take a lot of coaching for the actors even to pronounce properly. Additionally, you’d narrow your audience to those willing to put up with subtitles.

The founding-of-Rome Italian TV series Romulus used Latin. This worked only because it was one language and was marketed originally to an Italian audience. Latin isn’t Italian by a long shot, but it wasn’t wholly unfamiliar in sound. That said, it was more of an “art film” type. I (an ancient historian) quit watching it after the second episode because it was too much work, tbh. (It was also a lot bloodier than I was in the mood for, in the midst of Covid.)

But if you want to see a (good) example of what you’re suggesting, that’s one. Another, similar, is The Fast Runner, which is entirely written and performed in Inuktitut, an Alaskan language (albeit not ancient), and set in the mythical past. Despite its awards, it’s virtually unknown outside indigenous and art-film circles. I did watch all of that one (and liked it), but it was a single movie, not a series.

(Yes, I’m aware of Apocalypto, but I consider that more an example of why you don’t make a film in a language people can’t understand. It’s in Yacatec Mayan, which is actually modern. In that, it’s not unlike the Inuktitut in The Fast Runner, but the latter works better, imo.)

If you want to make a movie that will be watched and understood by non-specialist, non-art-house audiences, you will have to use English (or whatever language of the country it’s being marketed to). And you’ll need to think some about dialogue. How “archaic” do you want to get? Too much authenticity can send viewers into fits of giggles…probably not the approach one is going for. 😊

That’s why, in Dancing with the Lion, I opted to utilize fairly modern dialogue, then pepper it with a bit of Greek here and there. 1) Words easy to figure out. (“Idou!” = “Look!” as in, “Look, I know you think I’m…”.) OR 2) words difficult to render into English without it sounding silly or overly Christianized. (“Oimoi!” = “Woe!” but equivalent to “Damn!” which evokes Christian ideas.) Not every reader liked my choice, mind, but that’s why I made it.

Other writers, such as several in the newly popular “modern takes on Greek myths” employ something more akin to Mary Renault’s slightly archaizing approach. It’s also been used by Judy Tarr and Jo Graham in their historical fantasies. I like that option too, it’s just not mine.

But I wouldn’t get too complicated, or you’ll confuse (and thus lose) your audience.

But coming back to the number one hurdle to film authenticity in costumes, sets, quality actors, and crew … MONEY. To do it especially well, it doesn’t just take a commitment to authenticity, but an enormous budget. Oliver Stone’s Alexander cost 155 million dollars. I expect you could to it for less than that, but everything from good costumes to rentals of multiple sets used once (like a theatre for Philip’s murder), to horses and stunt actors, to quality CGI…to decent (if not A-list) actors, writers, historical consultants (more than just one as none of us can do it ALL)—that costs. You’ve got to be the likes of Stone to get investors to pony up for that. He started talking about making it way back in the early ‘90s, and it took him to the early 2000s to get the money.

Unfortunately, absolute authenticity is expensive in a story as far-flung as Alexander’s. It’s what a lot of the critique of the Netflix show really doesn’t get. There are still issues with it that doesn’t owe to money, but multiple compromises were made due to a lack of funds.

In the 3rd century B.C. , Carthage is the most powerful state in the Western world. It builds its wealth through trade, and uses its advanced naval force to dominate the Mediterranean. Carthage really was Rome's only competitor as an empire in the central and western Mediterranean. There were no other great states that could compete with it. Rome is a small but growing republic with outsized ambition. It knows that to defeat Carthage is to control the ancient world. The conflict between Rome and Carthage escalated into a life-and-death struggle between the two principle powers in the western Mediterranean.

When the two sides clash over Sicily, Rome is the rising power. And it's also adaptable, building a navy from the ground up that deals Carthage a shocking defeat. Rome forces Carthage to sign a crippling peace treaty in an attempt to break its enemy. It's implications for Carthage are pretty stark. Among other things, Carthage is effectively de-militarized or de-navalized. It is also subject to paying a substantial indemnity.