Alexander the Great
A film
Directed by Oliver Stone (Cert 15)

Like a host of other wargamers I waited expectantly for the release of Stone's Alexander. The pre release stills, especially the one with a rearing war elephant looked superb, and the TV programme "Charging for Alexander" gave us a revealing insight to the amount of effort that was placed into accurately portraying the warfare of the period. After the letdown of Troy I hoped that this movie would be the highpoint of Christmas.

Of course the critics panned the movie, but what do those hacks know. And what the Hell was all the furore about Alexander being gay. We all know that in the ancient World homosexuality was regarded in a totally different way than today, and that many of histories warriors are known to have been gay. Obviously this was a side issue blown up out of all proportion by right wing fundamentalist Christian bigots, just as Stone seemed to indicate. So I walked into the cinema already willing to support the Director's vision before I saw the movie.

By the time I left however my views had changed, and I felt really let down. Alexander is simply a bad film, damn it the hacks were right!

Where to start? OK at the beginning, the idea of having Sir Anthony Hopkins as the aging Ptolemy dictating his own experiences is quite a good one and a useful place to start using the dialogue to link the key events in Alexander's life. But is was wasted, and devalued to nothing more than a hurried and sketchy outline of the Macedonian campaigns, the whole of the conquest of Greece, the Mediterranean coast, Tyre, Jaffa, Egypt plus the defining pilgrimage to Shiwaw reduced to 30 seconds of dialogue and an image of the Gordian Knot being hacked asunder.

Then back to the boyhood of Alexander, where we find that he was a prime candidate for being taken into care. His father being a one eyed drunk taken to brutalising, raping and assaulting his snake loving, seductress of a mother, camped up by Angelina Jolie sounding like nothing more than a Transylvanian temptress . Oh happy families! And just to make things worse, it seems that all those ancient Macedonians spoke with Irish accents……. some of which were so bad that they made Homer Simpson's drawl seem Shakespearian. Seriously though this small thing seemed so ludicrous and ill thought out that I began to despair, especially when non-irish actors put on their "Quiet Man" versions of an Irish brogue. If Stone was trying to underline the Macedonians distinct culture, as a "less civilised" Greek tribe, as is alluded to in the film I would have thought he could have done so in a less pantomime way than the use of Irish accents.

And it is in this early life section that Stone also chooses to make Alexander's sexuality a keystone of the film with a discourse from Aristotle that underlines the nobility of a homosexual relationship where what is exchanged is not just pure animal lust but knowledge, experience etc etc. If this was not going to be a red rag to the fundamentalist Christian bull I don't know what would have been. I saw TV interviews where Stone claimed that Alexander's sexuality was no more or less than a minor element of the film although important in getting to grips with his character. This is not true, Stone makes this aspect of Alexander's life a major element of the film, and deliberately provoked the hostile reaction it received, and also I feel undermined the quality of the movie. Alexander's sexuality and his relationships with his friends and companions is a matter of debate is a matter of modern debate, but I am certain would not have been at the time, and certainly would not have caused the conflicts that Stone creates onscreen.

Having done all this did Stone give us any fresh or inciteful view of Alexander and his greatness. No, in fact it undermined the historical character to my mind. As the Director seemed to have lost the plot of his movie, so the Alexander on screen seemed to wander about aimlessly until he decides to kill himself by drinking disease infected wine to join his dead lover. The question I found myself asking is, "would I have followed this guy to the ends of the Earth?", the answer "Not to the end of the road!"

So is there anything good to say about the film?

The answer is yes. Val Kilmer is excellent as Philip of Macedon, a hardbitten old warrior proud and driven by personal devils. Rosario Dawson as Roxanne displays two excellent reasons why a gay male, or any male, would want to marry her. The special effects, such as the depiction of Babylon are superb, and of course there are the battle scenes….

Two battles are depicted the first being Gaugamela, which is initially very impressive indeed, the detail of costume and weaponry, seeming to my inexpert eye, excellent. And the action is bloody, fast and exciting, but I could not hear a word of the dialogue, and everything moved so very fast that it was a blur. This is a problem that I have been aware of since Gladiator, directors go for quick cut multi position action shots which do not allow the eye to take in every detail but imprints the major image of that frame, a style I absolutely hate. Still overall the battle scene was impressive and I will probably get the DVD just to run that section again at half speed.

The second battle is against the Indian forces of Porus. This time fought in dense forest instead of desert plain, and some of the scenes here are even more impressive. The attack of the elephants against the phalanx (filmed I understand in Thailand where they could find enough trained animals) is superb, this bit of the film really did wake me up, I even stopped looking at my watch and asking how much longer could this go on! But then the ghost of Gladiator came back to ruin it. Do you remember that puke making portion at the end of Gladiator when our hero floats horizontally over the purple Elysian Field to the welcoming arms of his murdered family? Well prepare for a replay a la Stone, a really poor touch.

I am as you can tell very disappointed with this movie. With a better plot, more focused direction, and limited scope this could have been an historical epic of memorable distinction. Unfortunately I think that Richard Burton's Alexander has more entertainment value, and that this much awaited offering simply turned out to be a Christmas Turkey. Still there is always "Kingdom of Heaven" to come, Crusades anyone?

JOS

And for the sake of balance another view!

Don't believe the critics. It's a vast, ambitious film and if it wanders
around a bit and falls somewhat short of its goals, well, so did its
hero.

The much-pilloried Irish accents and bisexuality aren't a problem if
you approach the film with some empathy for the period. The battle
sequences (admittedly less lengthy than I would have liked) are
spectacular (especially the battle in India) and the overall look of
the thing is stunning (as good as Gladiator - which is praise
indeed). 

The phalanx looks great en masse, the cavalry less so (it
must take years to train horses to manouevre) and the elephants
are genuinely terrifying from an infantryman's eye view. I can see
why it didn't play well in Boondock, Idaho, because it avoids a
comic-book vview of life and morality but approach it with an open
mind and the odd brain-cell and you'll appreciate it -streets ahead
of the likes of Troy and King Arthur. 

But if you want the real deal crazed visionary Alexander, watch Michael Wood's TV series.

Please remember to mention Wargames Forum when contacting traders!

Return to What's New?    Return to Home Page