Netflix's Newest History Series is So Bad, Even Greek Minister Trashes It

Summary

• Alexander: The Making of a God caused a lot of controversy, especially because of its portrayal of Alexander's homosexuality.
• Even the Greek minister commented on the film, but mostly noted its general inaccuracy.
• Regardless of the great commander's love interests, the series has little to do with being 'historical'.

Netflix has a history of releasing documentaries and series that focus on a particular historical figure or event. But as we know, few of these have actually been successful, and have only resulted in a lot of criticism, public campaigns (and frenzy) against the project, and a loss of credibility for Netflix.

On January 31, the streaming service's library has been updated with a new documentary series, Alexander: The Making of a God, which, based on its premise, should have finally been Netflix's successful attempt to bring history to the small screen. Unfortunately, the attempt turned out to be another failure for Netflix, as even the former Greek Minister of Culture noted the poor quality.

Unsuccessful Documentary Series

From its opening minutes, the series openly proclaims the romantic love of Alexander and his friend Hephaestion. And although some historians have suggested that this was quite possible, there have been cries of criticism from the far right, especially in Greece itself.

However, the show itself is not historically accurate, as former Greek Minister of Culture and Sports Lina Mendoni said amid the uproar. She noted that the show was 'replete with historical inaccuracies, demonstrates the director’s sloppiness and poverty of scenario.'

As for her opinion on the love affair between Alexander and Hephaestion, Mendoni was somewhat evasive.

'There is no mention in the sources that it goes beyond the limits of friendship, as defined by Aristotle. But you will know that the concept of love in antiquity is broad and multidimensional. We cannot interpret either practices or persons who acted 2,300 years ago by our own measures, our own norms and assumptions. Alexander the Great, for 2,300 years, has never needed, nor does he need now, the intervention of any unsolicited protector of his historical memory or, even more, of his personality and moral standing.'

Is It Really That Bad?

Browse any Facebook group dedicated to historical reenactments, and you'll find a bunch of amateur history buffs who make the costumes and battles far more historically accurate than the documentary. And while Oliver Stone's 2004 film has received some criticism from scholars, it portrayed Alexander's troops with far more care and respect, especially the Macedonian phalanx, which was virtually nonexistent in the docuseries. And yet the series relied much more heavily on expert opinion and archaeological evidence!

Another aspect, following on from the previous point, is Orientalism. First, the depiction of Darius in a turban is on the level of the fantasy film 300. Second, the show, which claims to be 'historical,' once again attempts to portray the Persians in a negative light: while attempting to be extremely inclusive and deconstruct outdated prejudices (especially regarding Alexander's sexuality), the show is surprisingly ignorant of the fact that the Persian Empire was one of the most advanced and tolerant states of its time.

While the aforementioned Colin Farrell movie was also criticized for this, it came out 20 years ago, and in 2024, such a ridiculous and even demeaning portrayal of anyone who isn't a white character (in this case, the Greeks) should be condemned outright.

Of course, there is no denying that the focus of the series is on Alexander's personality and drama, rather than ancient tactics and historically accurate weapon reconstructions. Nevertheless, when a series positions itself as documentary rather than fiction, such ignoring and mixing of facts does no honor to the project. In this case, many people would rather read the opinions of experts on current archaeological findings, or learn them from other materials, than be willing to waste their time watching a show whose creators so disregard historical context.

Source: The Guardian.