ahvginkel Reviews

Alexander (2004)

Expectations ran high...

[6/10 · 10 January 2005]

Alexander is, without doubt, a breathtaking movie. The scenes depicting the battle of Gaugamela can be used in any presentation dealing with warfare in classical times. But somehow, the script starts losing itself after the triumphal entry of Alexander in Babylon. No doubt there will be viewers who'll disagree with me. But in the course of the movie, the central figure Alexander loses more and more depth, while the surrounding ones, including his wife Roxana, gain it. It could well be that Stone tried to convey to us the feeling of loss of direction overwhelming the Macedonians, but to me it felt particularly unsettling. At one point, I even grew tired of the many homosexual escapades of Alexander, wondering what essential elements that number actually did add to the storyline. I have to say that it did not.

Maybe it's because after seeing so many spectacle war movies with special effects, like Gladiator, Pearl Harbour and King Arthur, I am wondering whether I am supposed to look at the horrors and butchery of those times, or to learn more from the central figures. I long for the drama and the depth of older productions of the same kind and could even stand a bit of old-fashioned morale embroidered in the story. Enough of that crude hyperrealism embellished by smart special effects. Please have mercy and give us normal movies again!

It Ain't Half Hot Mum (1974–1981)

Delightful

[27 October 2004]

The series has been rerun by Dutch TV lately, and really, it was in fact the only program I really enjoyed 5 times a week for a long time. Lovely boys, lovely series!!!!! The show has lost none of its freshness, wit and edge. SM Williams as the prototype British drill sergeant and the bedraggled concert party which remind me a lot of the stories depicted in Spike Milligan's war memoirs. The final episode with the demob scenes I found very touching. It was very realistically depicted with the war heroes returning to a drab Blythe and viewed with disdain and even contempt by the civvies they were "protecting".

I really hope that the BBC will air the show again. I miss it!!!!

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

A personal testimonial

[10/10 · 9 April 2004]

After seeing The Passion of the Christ, it's not possible for me to give a comment upon the movie itself without reacting to the many other comments, both positive and negative, The Passion has drawn.

As a historian, I applauded the way in which the movie was made. There are some incongruities here and there, but picking upon them would be like looking at a painting by noting how many wrinkles were drawn on the nose or how many leather straps a sandal shows. In The Passion, the complete painting matters, and like Jesus scorned the Pharisees for turning over each letter of the Scriptures instead of looking what they are about.... it would be a waste of time to stumble upon little details. This painting is breathtaking, and a cinematographic masterpiece in every way: acting, casting, special effects, script, etc..

Now to the comments of others. I dare ask all those who think this movie is too violent: what did you expect, in a time when whole cities were raped, pillaged and slaughtered for nothing? Of course, the Roman army was full of what we would now call, in our "civilized" society, emotionally disturbed persons, or just plain crazy. Look at the Roman society to which gladiator games was a great entertainment. Who could wonder about the sadistic way in which many - not all - Romans are depicted in this movie? Accept this fact, it's solidly built upon a myriad of historical evidence.

The Jews in the movie. The way Romans talk about the Jews in this movie, is completely congruent with the writings of Tacitus et al. about themselves and the "barbaric" peoples in their empire. Pilate and the Romans must have felt a loathing for the Jews. No wonder that the only time Roman legions destroyed a country, was in AD 70 when they slaughtered Jerusalem. Romans were convinced they brought enlightment to the vanquished peoples, and they couldn't understand the intolerant and arrogant way in which the Jews and the early Christians shoved away the Roman way, the "pax romana". They had to be punished for this "arrogance", and they were, as everyone knows.

But how do rabbinical groups talk about this Jesus of Nazareth? They have enough reason to do so in a negative way, first of all because of the antisemitism they encountered in the Christian world. But the Talmud talks about Jesus in a negative way. To pious Jews, Jesus is a renegade Jew. To the Jews of 2000 years ago, he was even worse, a blasphemer. Blasphemy was to be punished by death, and the Sanhedrin had no other answer to his teachings which run contrary to the Torah scriptures in many, many essential ways.

Looking at the facts, it all fits as it is described in this movie. It plays in a cruel world in which compassion was seen as a dangerous weakness. The Jews again massacred one of their prophets, as they have done so earlier. And the Romans were sick of being pushed by a small and arrogant populace. When push came to shove - and these are, again, all historical facts supported by Roman and Hebrew writings - things happened in AD 70 as foretold by this Jesus of Nazareth.

I think that the only group complaining about anti-semitism and extreme violence are the persons who shouldn't go and watch this movie. And as for me, as a believing Christian, this movie has changed a lot in my life.

I hold no grudge against Jews or Romans, after seeing the movie. Things happened as they were meant to happen, and the last thing we should do is denying it happened that way without plain counterevidence.

In short: a masterful movie.