Consider these questions in preparation for our April 3rd discussion of John Huston's The Man Who Would Be King (1975) with Prof. Anzalone.

• What were the real reasons that Peachy and Daniel set out for Kafiristan?
• Initially, what did they hope to achieve? As their time among the "natives" increases, what are the changes that come over Daniel? Does Peachy change?  If so, how?
• How does it come about that Daniel is hailed the "son of Iskander?" How does he react to this position? Do his reasons for staying in Kafiristan change after his acceptance of this position?
• What are the characteristics of Daniel that remind you of Alexander?
• Can Peachy be identified with anyone from the circle of Alexander's friends, or from the army? Back up your choice with as many characteristics as you can.
• What brings about the estrangement of Peachy from Daniel? Is this paralleled in the life of Alexander? How?
• How does the symbol of the Masons fit with the plot? Consider this: According to the Oxford English Dictionary (s.v.), "in 1717, under the guidance of the physicist J.T. Desaguliers, four of these [freemason] socie-ties, or 'lodges', in London united to form a 'grand lodge', with a new constitution and ritual, and a system of secret signs; the object of the society as reconstituted being mutual help and the promotion of brotherly feeling among its members."
• You are a historical consultant asked by the producers of this film to review it for authenticity. What struck you as particularly well done? Do you see any glaring mistakes in the way the movie was presented? Are the facts reported about Alexander reliable? Are the memories and traditions concerning Alexander in Kafiristan reasonable and possible? When would Alexander have travelled through this area?