Hollywood and the Great Captains of Greece and Rome
(In honor of Oscar week, my ancient ghosts have turned the blog over to an unnamed Hollywood critic.)
It is possible to make a great movie about the three greatest generals of the ancient world – Alexander, Hannibal, and Caesar – but you would hardly know it from Hollywood’s record.
With one exception, Hollywood has failed to rise to the challenge. Most of its films on these 3 characters are clunkers like Alexander the Great (1956) – where not even Richard Burton’s rolling of his r’s can breathe life into the movie. Four years later came Hannibal (1960), a Spaghetti Eastern starring Victor Mature. This B-movie has a few big battle scenes and what’s billed as a “wall of elephants.” Forget about it. Until and unless Vin Diesel makes his rumored film “Hannibal The Conqueror,” see instead a great movie about a man who thought he was the reincarnation of Hannibal – Patton (1970).
In Cleopatra (1963), all eyes are on Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra and Richard Burton again, now as Mark Antony. Their scandalous, adulterous, real-life affair during production rocked a dolce-vita-era Rome during the making of this film. Rex Harrison may capture a bit of the real life Caesar’s urbanity in his droll performance, but who notices?
Much earlier, Caesar and Cleopatra (1946) had a script by George Bernard Shaw and moments when Claude Rains (Caesar) shines in the reflected glow of Vivien Leigh as a young Cleopatra. But none of this is enough to save the film.
The one great success is 1953′s Julius Caesar, which won numerous awards in Hollywood and abroad. To Shakespeare’s play, this film added West End actors (John Gielgud, James Mason), first-class direction by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and production by John Housman, and an electrifying Marlon Brando as Mark Antony. Then there were little touches of Hollywood’s great age such as the cinematography and music, to say nothing of performances by Greer Garson, Debra Kerr, Edmond O’Brien — and Louis Calhern hamming it up to Caesar. The movie is still riveting today.
But why did this film have no successor? There’s only one Shakespeare of course but surely the world deserved better than Oliver Stone’s Alexander – a mess redeemed only by the excellent Battle of Gaugamela and the scenes on either side of it.
The battle scene’s success may point to the heart of the problem. What makes Colin Farrell’s portrayal of Alexander work here and not elsewhere in the film is his charisma. In other scenes he looks like a bad boy in a blonde wig but in battle he is the god of war. Hollywood feels comfortable with a great general’s glamour on the battlefield but not in the forum. We are glad to follow a man on horseback when he leads the charge against the foe but afterwards, back home, in the give-and-take of political debate, we don’t want to bow to any man.
Hollywood, of course, is the product of democracy– indeed for better or worse, it represents democratic popular culture in essence. No wonder Hollywood feels uneasy with the status obsession of Caesar or the majesty of King Alexander or the conviction of Hannibal that he was on a divine mission. Much less can Hollywood accept the possibility that some few individuals are better than others.
A natural genius conquers the world by force of his personality? Hollywood is comfortable with such a figure only as a criminal from an exotic origin (as in The Godfather, 1972) or as a borderline nut job (as in Patton) or as a cartoonlike character (think, 2007’s 300).
Don’t get me wrong: I think that Hollywood’s blind spot is, on the whole, for the good. I’ll take one of Jimmy Stewart’s modest and self-effacing heroes over Caesar any day. One shudders to think what movies might result from a Hollywood that honored the “Leadership Principle.” But I do think we can do a better job of representing the role of greatness, products as we are of a society that preaches equality but reveres achievement.
Barry Strauss’s new book, Masters of Command: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and the Genius of Leadership, will be published in May (Simon & Schuster).
Hannibal’s Path: Iran, Israel, and America
Hannibal’s Ghost came back from his sacrifice. He had such a fierce look about him that I wouldn’t have been surprised if he had just passed a child through fire to Moloch. But I didn’t ask.
“Welcome back, oh Subjugator of Spain. Before you left, you were clearing up my misconceptions about the Middle East. Let’s return to that subject, please. Can you tell me if the Israelis have the military capacity to set back the Iranian nuclear program by a few years?”
“Probably. A lot depends on the details. Will the operation be as difficult as crossing the Alps with elephants in the snows of autumn? Or as easy as luring the Romans into an ambush in the morning mist?
“If the Israelis can attack successfully, they will want to do so. After all, Iran has sworn their destruction.”
“What do you mean, ‘they will want to do so’?”
“The Israeli government has the will but the Americans cast a shadow in their way. Americans prefer a negotiated settlement.”
“What about negotiations? Aren’t sanctions about to force Iran to the table? Can’t we settle this matter without war?”
“Only if you want to settle for empty promises. Iranians already knew how to play their enemies back in the days of parlaying with Roman proconsuls. Outfoxing America would be child’s play.”
“Maybe so, but the talks are a worth trying, oh, Taker of Tarentum. After all, if Israel attacks Iran, the Iranians will respond by closing the Strait of Hormuz and so disrupt the world’s oil supplies.”
“The U.S. Navy would stop them first. Still, there would be shooting, and the Americans want to avoid that. Once the shooting starts, things might escalate. A terrorist attack on the US homeland, an American military response in Iran–who knows where it might end?”
“We Americans have had our fill of war in the Middle East, oh, Disciple of Hercules.”
“I was talking to my friend, the Duke of Wellington, recently,” said Hannibal. “The Iron Duke compared the American attitude to the Middle East today to England’s attitude to the continent of Europe in his era. England wanted to prevent a hostile power from dominating the region without having to spill any of its own blood. You Americans don’t want to see the Middle East, with all its oil wealth, under the thumb of a still-revolutionary Iran. But you don’t want to go to war to stop it either. And you don’t trust Israel not to drag you into war willy-nilly.”
“Wellington! He spilled plenty of English blood in the end. You military men are always quick to go to war. You think only of the glory and never mind the tears.”
“On the contrary: the politicians are so corrupt and self absorbed that we soldiers have to do double duty. It’s not enough to be general–we have to be diplomats, strategists, and statesmen as well.”
“You make a strange advocate of peace, oh, Killer of Cannae.”
“And you, professor, are not the first old man whom I have heard doddering on about war.”
Ah, I thought, that must be the famous Punic wit that the Romans talked about.
“The Middle East is a sideshow,” Hannibal continued. “For Americans, the main event is at home. As usual, the politicians have stolen from the people and filled their own purses. America needs a leader of iron discipline and incorruptibility to set its fiscal house in order.
“Like me: I was just a general when I came back to Carthage after the war with Rome, but I ran for office. In one year I accomplished more reforms than the politicians had in the 35 years I was abroad fighting for my country. I closed the old boys club, open the door to democracy, and launched an economic boom without raising taxes.”
The thought of Hannibal running for office, holding forth in a television debate, must have short-circuited something because with a crackle of lightning, he was gone.
I can’t say that I wasn’t relieved.
Barry Strauss’s new book, Masters of Command: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and the Genius of Leadership, will be published in May (Simon & Schuster).
Hannibal’s Path: is War Coming in the Middle East?
His bearded face had a weather-beaten look. His one good eye stared in scrutiny beside an aquiline nose. A man in his 60s, he still looked strong and unbowed–for a ghost. He was the shield of Carthage, the avatar of Hercules, the symbol of the one-eyed Celtic war god, the counselor of kings, the idol of the Army, and the terror of Rome–Hannibal.
“Son of Hamilcar,” I said, “I am honored to meet you.”
“An old man like me with a string of failures and a poor grasp of your language has little to offer,” he said.
“On the contrary, Judge of Carthage, you have one of history’s greatest strategic minds.” And, I added to myself, one of its most cunning.
“I was nothing more than the servant of my Republic.”
“Maybe so, Grace of Baal, but no city knew the highs and lows of war as Carthage did, and no citizen of Carthage made war more brilliantly than you. So I would like you to comment on today’s history in the making. Can you tell us, oh, scourge of Saguntum, whether you think Iran and Israel will go to war?”
“They already are at war. The only question is what the next stage of the conflict looks like.
“Iran has called for the annihilation of Israel and has armed its allies in Lebanon to the teeth with missiles and other weapons to make good on its goal. Iran claims its pursuit of nuclear energy is peaceful but few believe that. Israel, meanwhile, muses publicly about attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, as it did those of Iraq and Syria. Most observers believe that Israel is behind the sabotage of Iranian facilities that has already taken place, including assassinations of Iranian scientists.”
“Some Israeli and American officials say that Israel is getting ready to attack Iran while others deny it. I’m confused.”
“You should be! The purpose of those contradictory statements is to sow confusion. War is deception. The public sees only the product of deceit but not behind the curtain. We don’t know the reality.”
“Can you predict what happens next?”
“Only that, if the two sides are any good, it is unpredictable. Those who keep the enemy guessing win wars. Those who behave as expected march to defeat, like the Romans at Cannae.”
“Do you have any advice?”
“Yes: don’t listen to advisers.”
“So, only trust yourself?”
“No, never trust yourself.”
“Isn’t that a contradiction?”
“War is paradox.”
“No wonder the Romans found you slippery, oh, wise one.”
“Like children, the Romans saw only the elephants charging their front lines. They never noticed the common soldiers sneaking up on their rear.”
“Is that what victory will take in the war between Iran and Israel — superior deception?”
“You are seeing elephants again. War is never a matter of just one thing.”
“So, victory is multifaceted?”
“Now you sound like a cut rate lecture circuit salesman.”
Hannibal’s personality, sharp in every sense of the word, was beginning to take shape. I tried to draw him out: “Student of strategy,” I said, “Enlighten us! Teach us! We need your wisdom, oh matchless one!”
“Maybe later,” he said. “Now I must go and sacrifice a calf to the god Melqart.”
And with that, Hannibal turned briskly and left.
TO BE CONTINUED
Bread and circuses
With Super Bowl XLVI upon us, I summoned the ghost of the most victorious Roman of them all, Julius Caesar.
“Hail, professor,” he said. “I see that you’ve got a cast on your left arm. Is that a football injury?”
“No. I got it working out at the gym. I learned the hard way that I’m not 30 anymore.”
“That is a reverse in fortune, but accept it resolutely. No reason to lay down your weapons and seclude yourself in your tent. ”
“Agreed, thanks. But tell me, Caesar, what do you think of the Super Bowl? After all you were a great owner of gladiators and sponsor of gladiatorial games in your day. So I think you know a thing or two about sports spectacles.”
“The purpose of spectacle is marketing. Caesar used gladiatorial games to advertise himself to the Roman masses. In 65 BC, for example, while still an up-and-coming politician Caesar, sponsored gladiatorial games of unprecedented splendor. He had 320 pairs of gladiators, wearing silver armor, fight each other. He would’ve put on even more teams of gladiators but the Senate denied him permission. As it was, Caesar went deeply into debt to put on the games, but it was worth it in terms of the publicity he gained. Caesar sought and won the estimation of the vulgar.
Then came even a better investment – Caesar’s victories on the battlefield in the Gallic War and in the Civil War.
In 46 BC, when he was master of the Roman state, Caesar put on even bigger games including 1000 gladiators. One of the highlights of the show was a pair of high-ranking Romans as gladiators–a former senator and a man who came from a family of important officials. And Caesar covered half the forum, where the games were held, with a canopy–an unheard of luxury.
The Roman people loved Caesar for the power and the glory that his entertainments embodied. The people could practically feel the honor of his victories come alive within the walls of the arena. The games sold Caesar.”
“That’s fascinating. Who will the Super Bowl today sell?”
“The mayor of Indianapolis. Whichever senatorial candidate in Massachusetts waves the banner of the Patriots higher, especially if they win. But otherwise, the Super Bowl won’t sell any politician. As in the Roman Republic, the games will sell the person who pays for them–in this case, the advertisers. If the ancient games were about politics, the modern games are about business. And that’s the way it should be after all, because modern republics are based on commerce, not war, while ancient republics were based on the military and not the marketplace.
Nowadays, America’s Caesar is not Pres. Obama or Gov. Romney or Speaker Gingrich or any of the other challengers for the presidency. He’s not even General Petraeus. He’s Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or my fellow ghost, Steve Jobs. Those are the risk-takers and the titans.”
“How can you say that America is about money and not the military? Or if you’re right about that, surely you’re wrong about the Super Bowl. After all, don’t we think of the players as warriors?”
“In a society that calls traveling salesman ‘road warriors,’ that doesn’t mean much. Anyhow, to repeat, the Super Bowl is about the sponsors not the players. Those who are wise, understand that.
Anyhow they might play the Super Bowl im an amphitheater, but the most Roman place in America today is not a football stadium. The most Roman place in America today is not West Point or Annapolis–it’s Las Vegas.”
“I thought I saw you in Caesar’s Palace, dictator!”
But with Caesar muttering something about his dignity, he turned on his heels and left.
The Pompey Effect
The Republican establishment wanted him. A brilliant strategist, he was painstaking in his attention to logistics. He knew his business inside and out. His friends adored him and he had many friends.
Hail, Caesar! It sounds like you are describing the perfect candidate.
I haven’t finished. His speeches left as much of an impression as a tideless sea on a gravel shore. His men fought well as long as they were fed and paid on time. If they wanted inspiration they looked elsewhere.
Uh-oh. Just who are you describing?
Lose one battle and he lost the war. At the first sign of trouble, his men went flying for the exit.
Are you describing a certain inevitable presidential candidate, Dictator?
Unlike him, his opponent was an inspiring speaker, a successful author, a man of vision, and audacity incarnate. While he came from privilege, his opponent was a man of the people, or at least he could claim to be.
Not the Massachusetts Moderate?
Caesar is referring to his ill-fated rival, Pompey the Great. Rome’s Senatorial establishment chose him to hijack the state and lead their jealous war against the brilliant governor of Gaul. Pompey was second to none as a military strategist and organizer. His extensive network of friends allowed him to tap the wealth and power of Italy and the entire Eastern Mediterranean, which was the richest part of the Roman world.
That’s a relief, I thought you meant Mitt Romney.
Like Pompey, Governor Romney is a man of many talents. He is a superb businessman with the potential of making an excellent manager of a troubled economy. An effective governor, he appears to be a man of decency and steadfastness. He should win but, then again, so should have Pompey.
Pompey had everything it takes except the ability to compete. He built a great army but he didn’t know how to use it. He didn’t know when to go for the jugular and when to hold back. Does Romney?
Romney is an impressive man.
So is President Obama. Let the games begin.
Barry Strauss’s new book, Masters of Command: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and the Genius of Leadership, will be published in May (Simon & Schuster).
