|
December 03, 2004
Is Western civilization really so ludicrous?
Amidst the hoopla over the Oliver Stone film (discussed infra, here and here), Christopher Hitchens wrote a very thoughtful piece acknowledging Alexander's strengths and weaknesses, while touching on the implications for Western civilization: Alexander himself was not above using myth for propaganda purposes. He claimed descent from Achilles, the hero of Troy, and from Zeus himself. He took the work of Homer with him wherever he went. He wanted to be acknowledged as Pharaoh in Egypt—the loftiest of all aspirations in those days—and also to be recognized as a god by those who worshipped the Olympian pantheon. Alexandros Megalos, to give him his Greek sobriquet, reminds us of the root of our word "megalomania." But should he be compared with the other great despots of antiquity, or with more modern totalitarians and butchers?There's much more, and Hitchens has done his homework. Alexander the Great is not readily reduced to modern stereotypes, one-liners, or snap judgments based on modern morality. Unfortunately, the Stone film does little but encourage such cultural reductionism. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it cultural nihilism, but I don't see how this rather silly film will help enlighten anyone about Western Civilization. ADDITIONAL NOTE: For those wanting another amusing review of the film, Rex Reed has a fun piece in this week's New York Observer. His conclusion? The actors are awful. Half of them never speak, and then they die. It’s too long, too boring, too expensive and too embarrassing to make any kind of lasting impact beyond the popcorn stand.Lots more, if you like that sort of thing. posted by Eric on 12.03.04 at 12:40 PM
Comments
I am a big fan of Alexander. In fact, I am a collector of some Alexander paraphrenalia from original era -- coins. And a few Alexander books. One thing that I wonder is how much we project our own desires onto this "hero." He is a big hero to some in the Straussian wing of the Bush administration, certainly. But I think he is also a hero for anyone who has desired to conquer the world through the complete expression of the self ... and not stop to compromise with fellow humans along the way. Certainly, I would be an Alexander, if I could be one. bink · December 3, 2004 09:32 PM Another parallel occured to me: Alexander was an admirer of Egypt. So was Napoleon. It was one of his Egyptologists who deciphered the Rosetta Stone. HAIL TO THE EMPIRE....!!!! Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato theElder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · December 4, 2004 02:14 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Very interesting. The man (Alexander), not the movie. He had high ambitions. To be Pharaoh of Egypt. Many an Egyptian longed for that honor, much less a foreigner, a barbarian (as the Egyptians would have seen him), a Greek. And to claim descent from Achilles and even from Zeus. Spengler saw him as the Classical parallel to Napoleon.
HAIL TO THE EMPIRE....!!!!