Chasing Alexander

Everyone knows of or has heard of Alexander. Or Iskandar as he is called in the East.

A bust of Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, (356 - 323 BC), son of Philip II of Macedon and Queen Olympias, circa 330 BC. The sculpture was found in the Roman Capitol. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

A bust of Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, (356 – 323 BC), son of Philip II of Macedon and Queen Olympias, circa 330 BC. The sculpture was found in the Roman Capitol. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Alexander was the Macedonian King whose military exploits were the shining example of what human arrogance and achievement can accomplish. Exploits that were emulated for thousands of years after, proof that one man can do wonders. That one man can conquer the world.

Although, conquer is a strong word. Alexander sought to unify the world. To bring it under one ruler and therefore banish the ills that plagued it… which is an over simplification I know. In order to do that, the was a lot of war, blood, death and carnage, and the attempt ended in defeat. Defeat is a strong word to, and may not be entirely accurate. But this post isn’t concerned with an in-depth historically accurate portrait of Alexander.

No, what I really want to write about, to put out there in the blog-o-sphere, are my thoughts on the the 2004 film, Alexander by director Oliver Stone, starring Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, Jared Leto and Rosario Dawson.alex2004


A retrospective/reappraisal of Stone’s original theatrical release was writing by for in 2014, which you can read here: A REAPPRAISAL OF OLIVER STONE’S “ALEXANDER: THE ULTIMATE CUT”

The film was panned when it was first released and since then it has had a number of re-edits and versions – talked about in the article above and so is now seen as a much better film than when first released. Though it still has flaws.

It’s long and flips back and forth in time, and the battle and action scenes while grand and epic, can be hard to follow at times. Its hard to encompass the idea of Alexander, as Anthony Hopkins explains in the beginning. How do you tell the story of a man who is more legend than reality?

I recently re-watched the film – which is currently streaming on Netflix) and was struck by the words Alexander uses during one of the arguments that Alexander has with he ‘companions’. The debate and discussion comes as they push further and further East, away from their homeland of Greece (Macedonia). The men are weary and trying to understand Alexander’s bid to reach the ‘outer sea’. He wants to sail back round to Africa, travel up the Nile and to Egypt, thus encircling/conquering the known world.

The argument I’m talking about in the film is, essentially, very pertinent to what we are dealing with today, here in the US and around the world. And which seems to be the only thing that matters to our society/culture/species – this never-ending conflict between East and West.

Alexander’s companions are tired, war-weary and beginning to question his motives and leadership. To them, he seems much more enamored of their enemies and to be forgetting who he is. He’s taking on their mode of dress, participating in their customs – he even takes a “barbarian” wife.

The men are naturally upset – because it goes against everything they’ve been raised and taught to believe. The tribes and people to the East are beneath them. They are decadent, overly emotional, savages. As Aristotle (played by Christopher Plummer in the film) tells them: “…the Oriental races are known for their barbarity and slavish devotion to their senses. Excess in all things is the undoing of men. That is why we Greeks are superior, we practice control of our senses. Moderation.”

The movie was released three years after 9/11 and the start of the War on Terror. In one sense, it can be seen as a pro-democracy film. Greece was the birthplace of Democracy after all. So, this film and others, like Zack Snyder’s 300 in 2006 do very much play as a reminder and assertion that the West is, as Aristotle states, superior.

The end of the argument between Alexander and his men ends with the young king furious with his men –

Parmenion: He never lusted for war, Alexander, or enjoyed it so. He consulted his peers in council, among equals! The Macedonian way. He didn’t make decisions based on his personal desires.

Alexander: I’ve taken us further than my father ever dreamed! Old man, we’re in knew worlds.

Cassander: Alexander, be reasonable! Were they ever meant to be our equal? Share our rewards? You remember what Aristotle said. An Asian? What would a wedding vow ever mean to a race that has never kept their word to a Greek?

Alexander: [throws Cassander against the wall] Aristotle be damned!

Hephaistion: Alexander!

Alexander: By Zeus and all the gods, what makes you so much better than them, Cassander? Better than you really are! In you and those like you is this!

Hephaistion: [pleading] Alexander…

Alexander: What disturbs me most is not your lack of respect for my judgment, but your contempt for a world far older than ours!

Of course this is dialogue written for a film. Its not the actual words that passed between Alexander and his men. Its thinking that is modern, said in a modern way. But it captures an aspect of what Alexander was trying to achieve.

And that argument, I think, is what we are still facing and fighting today. We’ve been entrenched in this conflict for thousands of years – West vs. East.

The East in Alexander and in 300 is painted as an alien culture and landscape, they are dark and ugly and cruel. They are ruled by despots and tyrants, made rich on the backs of slaves. They pay men to fight to enrich themselves.

The West on the other hand is light and good and fighting for freedom – the same rhetoric we hear today. Which of these is true? It all depends on where you stand.

Many won’t understand Alexander’s last line in the film scene quoted above. They think and believe as Alexander’s men do, as Aristotle did: that they are superior.

When you listen to the speeches of our leaders listen to the words that are used. Its not so much the people of Ancient Persia we are fighting against now, but ideologies and beliefs which did not exist in Alexander’s time

We not battling not the barbarian hordes, its Radical Islam.

I always am bothered by arguments on the subject that treat it as though this is something new and that can be stamped out. the truth of it – in my own mind – is that the ugly things happening out there right now: immigration bans, terror attacks, the rise of populist leaders, the Left vs. Right bigotry and hatred – stretch much further back than just a very horrible and terrible day in September 16 years ago.

And I think people forget that. I think people only see what is front of them.

Like Alexander’s men… they don’t understand the dream he was trying to achieve. The thing that drove him, the thing he was chasing and what many after him chased as well. What some still chase today.

A unified world.

Many don’t want that in this day and age. The current political climate in America is very much not about unity.

What many see, and what many want is separation and division. Them above the other. They are in the Right and we are in the Wrong.

Its an argument that stretches back millennia… and one that will not have an end in my lifetime.

At the close of the film Anthony Hopkins has the following speech:

Old Ptolemy: The truth is never simple and yet it is. The truth is we did kill him. By silence we consented… because we couldn’t go on. But by Ares, what did we have to look forward to but to be discarded in the end like Cleitus? After all this time, to give away our wealth to Asian sycophants we despised? Mixing the races? Harmony? Oh, he talked of these things. I never believe in his dream. None of us did. That’s the truth of his life. The dreamers exhaust us. They must die before they kill us with their blasted dreams.

Those who dream exhaust those who want things to stay as they are.

And they fight against a dream of unity because they fear they will be lost in it. If we are all the same, how can I be me? How can I be just one?

Peace Impossible

So, a notion has been rolling around in my head the last few weeks – and it’s not a new notion, it’s not something that hasn’t been discussed before by people a hell of a lot smarter than me – but here it is:

We will never have peace on this planet. Never.

Why do I say that? Because our whole existence (and I’m speaking about us humans here) revolves around conflict. Why do I believe that? What prompted me to write this?

There’s a new Star Wars movie coming out later this year. Even the title of the franchise should give you a clue as to why I chose to post about this. I read a rumor about the plot of the film today and the rumor post contains the following line – “The real war then begins and the fight for the control of planets and territory begins, causing a conflict the storytellers hope will lead to countless Star Wars tales for years to come.”

OK, before I begin, let me state right off the bat that I don’t have a solution to the issue of us as a species never having peace, and by peace I mean a state of being were it is no longer necessary to manufacture or use weapons of any kind. According to the rumor about the film, the manufacture, sale and use of weapons is central to the core of the film’s story – and it’s this industry that is churning away like gangbusters on this planet. I guess I could site sources talking about how many weapons are made every day or how many get shipped here and there but that’s not really what I’m trying to address.

This is my thought: We will never have peace because conflict is something that is embedded and entwined and such an integral part of our everyday vocabulary that you cannot go a day without expressing it in one form or another. Now, that may seem simplistic and too broad for some – for example, my mother, when I expressed the notion that conflict was such a prominent concept in our language and mode of expression, poo-poohed the whole thing, saying it was ‘just the way things are.’

Part of the reason I think she said that was because, it’s a muddy concept. Words are easily twisted and confused, especially when you give voice to them as opposed to writing them down. Our communication relies not just on the words we use, but on our inflection, tone and other visual clues that give the listener or receiver an indication of what our meaning is.

Think about how many times a day or a week you use a “conflict” term to describe an event or situation in conversation.

“I had to fight to get out of bed this morning.”

“Man, it was an uphill battle to get the boss to see reason on that issue.”

“I had to beat that math problem into submission.”

And a dozen other examples. Every part of our culture has conflict as its central theme – or, it can be thought about in that way, or you can, not think about it at all. Depending on how much of headache you want to give yourself.

I am a self-professed pacifist. I avoid conflict when it arises, sometimes – a lot of times – to my detriment. There are a number of situations I probably should have “fought” my way through, rather than retreating from them. I mean, it’s not like I haven’t fought for things before or steeped myself in the concept or culture of struggle and conflict.

I remember being fascinated by movies or TV shows, comic books or toys that glorified war. I had G.I. Joes growing up (the ones based on human soldiers or military types – not the ‘soldier superhero’ they have become). I played with green army men in the garden, or plastic knights and archers, fantasizing or re-creating massive battles for a castle stronghold. All of the books I read involved some form of violence or struggle – the basic story that’s been told from time beyond time – good vs. evil, light vs. dark, our side triumphing over their side.

Perhaps it’s so steeped in our collective experience because we come into the world in a violent manner. It’s a struggle to be born. And sometimes the birth of a new life comes at the expense of another life.

And, if we are to believe that our minds retain that memory, it’s no wonder we grow up with the notion that everything is a struggle – and it is. On a very real level we struggle everyday just to get through it.

But why should it be so? Is it possible that we create this culture or concept through our thinking about it that way? Or accepting it that way?

We create our future, to paraphrase. Why then to we perpetuate the culture of conflict?

Why do we need to set up a franchise along the notion that “a conflict the storytellers hope will lead to countless Star Wars tales for years to come”?

Of course, what I’m talking about is not ever going to change – it can’t. We are creatures of a planet that breeds life forms that feed upon one another. Nature, red in tooth and claw as Tennyson observed so much more eloquently than I, is the order of the day.

Of course I am somewhat of a hypocrite when it comes to the subject of conflict and the “culture of violence” that pervades society. I mean, I’m a writer. I write fiction and I write fiction that involves characters that fight or struggle or battle.

So, I am adding to the volume of noise and creativity that thrives on the notion of violence and struggle.

If we were to ever achieve a culture of peace – what would happen? What would become of us? Would we be considered human at all?

These are the type of questions that keep me up at night. That intrigue and confound me. If I were a true Buddhist I would understand that this concern I have over the concept of violence being so entrenched in our culture and language is simply a delusion – a delusion of self-grasping ignorance and attachment, whereby I have mistakenly attributed my emotional experience to external conditions – those external conditions being of course the flood of information that seems to be centered around or concerned with violence and death and war.

buddha-3thingsIf I were a true Buddhist I would also understand that what appears to be external conditions (this preoccupation with violence, the language we use, the images we are confronted with day in and day out) are not external at all; the nature of our “reality” depends upon our experience of it.

In other words, in this reality we do not find happiness; we create it. If we’ve ever felt joy, we can know for certain that we have the seed and the capacity to cultivate it.

Of course, the only way I can accept the notion of world peace, is to simply live my life as though it already exists – by rejecting the notion of violence as the norm, and cultivate an atmosphere of peace and serenity around myself.

Will that mean I won’t go see the new Avengers movie this May? (May1st baby!) Hell no. 🙂

As I said – hypocrite.

I seek peace in my life, but seek conflict in my entertainment and creativity. Violence and struggle leads to insight and revelation – as long as the violence and struggle is in the mind, conflict is necessary to our lives, though we fight to suppress it (see what I did there? :))

Perhaps that is why we cannot ever have peace – because once we achieve it we find ourselves consciously or unconsciously seeking that which allowed us to achieve it in the first place. We need struggle it seems, in one form or another. Even the most enlightened minds must constantly strive to achieve a state of grace and peace.

It’s a vicious circle of thought, no?

Anyway, that’s my rambling nonsense for the day – if you have an opinion or insight, leave a comment, or maybe just reflect on it at some point and let me know what you think.

Ok, now I have to get back to writing my story – which involves some element of violence. *sigh*