Oliver
Stone's 'Alexander'
Movie Review
9th January 2005
Introduction
Oliver Stone began work on Alexander in
1989, and it's taken 15 years for his epic to finally make to the big screen. After pondering over his script for many years, Stone
admitted it was the announcement of the planned rival project by Baz Luhrmann that made him get things rolling. It's taken an incredible amount of work, time, and money, with a rumoured US$150 million budget, to get
Alexander off the ground, but Stone's efforts have paid off and
his film has finally been completed.
Alexander premiered in the US on 16th November 2004 and it is currently being distributed around the world. It has received a mixed
reaction. Reports have said the film has done better outside of the US but, within the US at least, it seems the general response from the media and movie-goers alike has been largely negative.
Alexander opened here in the UK on 7th January 2005. I have been roughly following the progress of the film for the past couple of years, mainly because of its connection with the planned
Baz Luhrmann version. I have always found myself curious to see how Stone would treat the material, and how
well his film would be received. Today, I attended a UK opening weekend screening to satisfy my
curiosity and form my own opinions regarding Stone's much anticipated movie.
When I attended the screening, I was pleased to find the film was being shown in a large cinema, with seating for
approximately 300 people. However, in a cinema complex housing over 20 screens, I discovered that
Alexander was only being shown in one auditorium, with just three sessions a day. This limited distribution made me wonder if the decision had been swayed by the largely negative US response to the film.
Nevertheless, upon entering the cinema, I was pleased to find it about three quarters full, not bad for a Sunday afternoon session.
The Beginning
The film's opening credit's are quite impressive, with
Greek text morphing into the cast and crew names, and with historical images of the real Alexander lingering in the background. I consider music to be an important element in any film, especially an historical epic. Therefore, I was pleased to find that Vangelis, a Greek composer, was responsible for
Alexander's soundtrack. I am a fan of Vangelis's work on films such as
Chariots of Fire, Blade Runner and 1492. His work on Alexander
is also impressive, although perhaps not quite as impressive as his previous works.
It is not a score that lingers in your mind. Nevertheless, I found his instrumental
music throughout the film to be effective.
The movie opens with a brief scene depicting Alexander's death. However, at first the audience does not know who this man is. All we see is a figure lying down, his arm reaching for the sky, and a red jewelled ring on one finger. We see the face of another man looking on as Alexander's arm falls over the side of where he lays, his ring falling to the floor. We then cut to Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy, and older version of the man we saw witnessing Alexander's death. He is wearing the red jewelled ring, which further indicates he was the man in the previous scene. He then proceeds to give an account of the man that Alexander was. Young scribes writing down Ptolemy's musings in the background as the audience is introduced to the man that was Alexander.
Ptolemy gives a rather detailed introduction, and seemingly assumes the audience does not know much about Alexander. His prologue therefore attempts to educate viewers before moving onto actual scenes of Alexander's life. This is a logical method of introduction, as I'm sure many
general viewers do not know much about the real Alexander, and therefore would probably have a hard time understanding the film without
being provided with some background information first.
Having said this, we do see a lot of the older Ptolemy interspersed throughout the entire film and, at times, I found his scenes tend to drag on a little. At the other extreme,
Ptolemy's dialogue often skips rather speedily over a lot of Alexander's life, with several key parts being glossed over with a sentence or two. While I do appreciate that telling the life story of Alexander in one 175 minute film is inevitably going to have its difficulties, there are some parts of his story that I felt would have been better conveyed by being played out onscreen instead of being
intertwined into Ptolemy's musings.
I do not pretend to know much about Alexander's life myself. I have only learned about him through following the production of Stone's and Luhrmann's films, plus watching a couple of
historical documentaries. Therefore, all I can write here is my personal interpretations of what I feel Stone's film was attempting to convey and what it was trying to achieve. But yes, I do think that some important elements of Alexander's story were hastily skipped over in Ptolemy's musings that perhaps should have received screen time instead of some other scenes that I personally felt were not as vital. But Stone had choices to make. He had
said years ago that he wanted to concentrate on the conspiracy theories surrounding Alexander's life, and this is
the path he chose to take.
Olympias
After the introduction from Ptolemy, we see Angelina Jolie as Olympias talking with her young son, Alexander. While I had my initial reservations, I do think that Jolie is excellent as Alexander's mother. History depicts her as a rather eccentric woman who worshiped the Greek Gods and was even sometimes described as a sorceress. In her opening scene, we see her handling a snake, and she is teaching Alexander to handle the creature too. Olympias claims that Alexander's real father was the almighty Zeus, and even history suggests she thought it was a snake that helped her to conceive. There is therefore something quite eerie about Olympias as she fondles these creatures who hardly leave her side throughout the entire film.
As Olympias talks to her young son, we can see that she loves him greatly. Above all, she wants to nurture him, teach him and protect him. On the wall of the room is a giant picture of Achilles dragging Hector from the back of his chariot around the walls of Troy. Olympias believes Alexander to be the son of a God, and wants him to grow up to be a Greek hero like Achilles, a figure who Alexander comes to greatly admire. Indeed, Greek mythology is heavily featured throughout the movie, and it plays an important part in explaining the motives of many of the characters, especially Alexander and his mother.
Jolie plays the role of Olympias with much enthusiasm, and she is very convincing in depicting the character's manipulative nature. After seeing the film, I admire her for pulling off the role. However, I must admit, while I do believe she is a good actress, from the moment I heard Jolie was cast, I wondered how on earth they would pull off her physical transformation. Jolie is the same age as Colin Farrell, who plays the adult Alexander. Therefore, while Jolie looks the right age for portraying Alexander's mother when he is a young boy, I thought they would perhaps alter her appearance to make her look older for her scenes with Farrell. However, publicity photos distributed before the movie's release clearly showed that her appearance had not been altered, and the film proved this was indeed the case. Jolie looks the same age when talking to her young son as she does when talking to him
over a decade later. I therefore attempted to put aside this technicality and concentrate on Jolie's performance itself, which inevitably won me over.
Philip
King Philip, played by Val Kilmer,
makes his entrance when he rudely interrupts Olympias's discussion with
the child Alexander. After a night of heavy drinking, he barges into the room and tries to sexually assault his wife while Alexander hides under the covers. However, Olympias is defiant, and fights back from his drunken advances. It is
made clear from the start that Philip's marriage is a rocky one, and it seems evident that Olympias does not love her husband, only her son, whom she can't wait to become Philips's successor.
Val Kilmer's Philip is passable. However, I do feel that his acting did not meet up to the excellent standards set by Jolie and Farrell. I cannot put my finger on the exact reason why, but he did not seem to be as immersed in his role as the others, and perhaps could not quite grasp the character. He did his best to convey Philip's troubles as King, his drunken squabbles, his womanising, and his unstable relationship with his son. Philip only had one eye, the other
presumably being lost in battle, and he had an overwhelming desire to conquer Persia and become a great leader. However, he is murdered before he gets to achieve his goals and Alexander
succeeds him as Macedonia's new king.
Philip's Death
It is heavily suggested in the film that it was Olympias who plotted to have Philip killed. I had
seen a documentary about the real Alexander that said that Philip was killed at his daughter's wedding, but in the film he is stabbed by an assassin in front of his people. History has also suggested it may have been Alexander himself who had some involvement, but this film clearly does not believe this to be the case. Alexander is highly distraught at his father's death and proclaims that he loved him and did not want to become king 'like this'. Philip had remarried and borne another son to a younger woman, a predicament that Olympias obviously did not like. Olympias's reaction to Philip's murder is emotionless, which leads Alexander to accuse her. However, when Alexander demands to know if she was involved, she stares at him with a suspicious glint in her eyes, but says no.
Alexander runs in chronological order for the majority of the film's running time. However, the circumstances surrounding Philip's death are not shown until much later in the movie. After we see Alexander kill one of his closest friends, Cleitus, during a drunken brawl, we are suddenly transported back in time to eight years earlier. This technique threw me a little, and I personally believe it would have been better
if all scenes had been shown in chronological order. In this flashback sequence of events, we see the
19-year-old Alexander talking with Philip minutes before his murder. Philip introduces Alexander to Cleitus and tells him he is a man he can always trust. I understand how this ties into the death of Cleitus and the devastation Alexander feels afterwards, but I believe the death of Philip and the reactions of Alexander and Olympias are quite important in understanding what leads Alexander into battle in the first place.
For example, during the flashback sequence of events, after Alexander accuses his mother of involvement in Philip's death, we hear from
Ptolemy's voiceover that this is the last time he will ever see her. However, by the time we see all this, we are about
two thirds of the way through the film. Alexander has been reading letters from his mother
during his travels and displaying somewhat cold feelings towards her, but it is not until this flashback sequence that we fully understand why.
Alexander
With regards to acting out the complex
role of Alexander, I feel Stone made some exceptional casting choices. The first time we see Alexander in the film, he is a small child.
As the film progresses, we see several scenes featuring a slightly older version of Alexander. I must say that this young actor, Connor Paolo,
is outstanding. The sequence where we see the young Alexander taming his legendary horse was deeply moving, and Paolo's performance throughout had me totally enthralled. Stone made an excellent choice in casting Paolo in the role, as I feel he
bought a depth to the character that few actors of his age ever could. Not only was his acting exceptional, but there was something in his eyes that
acted as a window into his character's soul and brought us closer to understanding Alexander's desire for glory. It is this desire for glory that is the underlying concept of the entire film, and indeed of Alexander himself.
With regards to acting out the role of the adult Alexander, Colin Farrell tries exceptionally hard.
The role of Alexander is truly a mammoth responsibility to place on any actor, and I admire Farrell for taking up such an incredible challenge. He really did try to understand the man behind the myth, and
he attempted to embody the character as best as he could. Could any actor ever completely fill the shoes of Alexander the Great? Could any actor ever be truly convincing in every way? I think not. But Farrell certainly made an excellent attempt. There were some superficial flaws, such as Farrell portraying Alexander as a 19-year-old right through until the age of 33 without, like Jolie, the use of any ageing effects. Plus, the blonde locks, whether short or long, did not suit Farrell's dark facial features and looked slightly odd. Many people have also commented on him keeping his native Irish accent, but this did not bother me as much. However,
I did feel that Farrell's speeches to Alexander's armies sometimes lacked the power and force that would have propelled 40,000 men to follow him across the unknown world. But, besides from this, Farrell was very convincing in the many emotional scenes, and successfully conveyed the character's ever growing
loneliness and despair.
Alexander's Sexuality
There has always been much debate and controversy surrounding Alexander's sexuality, and there was much speculation over how Stone would handle this aspect of the film. As I said earlier, Stone had wanted to include some of the
conspiracy theories surrounding the life of Alexander, and these are depicted throughout the film, with questions raised about the deaths of Philip, Hephaistion, and even Alexander himself. But the issue of sexuality is perhaps the most delicate. There is a lot of evidence to show that Alexander was bisexual, and this is the route that Stone
decided to take.
At first, the signs are subtle, with Alexander and his lover, Hephaistion, exchanging meaningful looks. There are hugs and pecks on the forehead and cheek between
the men in the film, but initially things do not go further than that. However, a few months after their arrival at Babylon, Alexander openly declares his love for Hephaistion. This makes Alexander's sexuality clear, and gradually the matter progresses
throughout the film. However, Hephaistion and Alexander never kiss, nor is there any sexual interaction. Indeed, I felt the matter was handled very maturely.
When Alexander arrives at Babylon, they encounter a room full of 'servant' girls and boys, and the men soon start interacting and enjoying themselves. Alexander catches the eye of a male servant, Bagoas, and this man becomes his constant companion for the rest of the film. Bagoas, played
by newcomer Francisco Bosch, does not speak, but the camera gives him quite a lot of
attention. Although he does not talk, he communicates with his eyes and facial expressions, and it is clear he looks up to Alexander and admires him deeply. Surprisingly, it is not with Hephaistion, but with Bagoas that Alexander shares a full-on kiss. This is the only kiss between men in the film, and it is made when Alexander is quite drunk, not long before he kills Cleitus. However, Stone goes no further than this, as there is no need. The only fully sexual scenes we see depicted in this film are between Alexander and Roxane, played by Rosario Dawson.
Jared Leto, who plays Hephaistion, is effective in his role as Alexander's closest and most treasured companion. He too conveys a lot through his
eyes and spends much of his screen time staring at Alexander from the sidelines. When Alexander eventually takes a wife at Babylon to bear him a son, Roxane, we see an emotional scene between him and Hephaistion. It is here that Hephaistion gives him the ring bearing the red stone that we see in the opening
scene of the film. As they exchange tearful words, Roxane interrupts. The men do
not say anything, but she can see by their reactions where Alexander's heart truly lies. She confronts him, but he tames her and lets her remove the ring from his finger to gain her trust. However, he later retrieves the ring and returns it to his finger, making it clear that he has only one true love, and it is not his wife.
Battle of Gaugamela
Personal relations aside, Alexander is best known for his triumphs in battle. Any movie depicting the life of Alexander the Great must feature brilliant fighting sequences and, with an impressive
budget of around US$150 million, this is obviously where Stone invested much of his finances. The mighty Battle of Gaugamela is arguably one of the most stunning battle sequences ever depicted on film.
Alexander features just two battles, which I did find surprising with Alexander having made so many conquests. But, due to the number of battles and time restraints enforced by the world of cinema, Stone obviously decided to focus on his two most renown battles.
One of the most famous of Alexander's battles is indeed the Battle of Gaugamela, and this is arguably the best
of the two fighting sequences depicted in the film. It is clear that Stone put a lot of research into Alexander's fighting techniques, and the formations of the soldiers are frighteningly realistic. The Persians and Macedonians are
distinctively different sides, with different appearances, weapons and fighting techniques. As
King Darius leers across the battlefield from the safety of his chariot, Alexander leads a cavalry charge up the right flank to aim directly for the King. He misses his target, and the cowardly Darius retreats to the hills, leaving his army at Alexander's mercy. What occurs during the battle is great to
watch, but what makes this a truly visual feast is the employment of the 'eagle eye' viewpoint. This is achieved by the camera focussing on a golden eagle soaring high above the men below,
with the camera then taking on the view of this magnificent creature as it swoops over the scene of the battle. We return to the
'eagle eye' over and over in order to convey the breathtaking scope of the scene to the
audience. It is a wonderfully effective technique.
Indian Battle
The second battle later on in the film takes place in India. In the Battle of Gaugamela, we see an impressive shot of Persian camels running across the sand. But here, Stone goes one better and unleashes Indian war elephants onto the screen. Apparently, real elephants were used in these sequences, and their presence is suitably terrifying. However, while the Battle of Gaugamela took place in a wide open plain, this battle takes place under the cover of trees, which obscures the view and makes the entire sequence seem somewhat jumbled. There is no
'eagle eye' view. At one pint, Alexander even comments that he can no longer see the creature soaring above and seems somewhat
unsettled as a result. It is a similar feeling for the audience as the ground visibly shakes and the camera darts around the tree trunks with dizzying effect.
One of the most notable images that lingers in your mind from this battle is, while facing up to a war elephant, Alexander rears up on his horse, with the elephant doing
likewise, and a clever side-on shot is captured of the impressive face off. However, mayhem
quickly follows. His horse is killed and then Alexander himself is speared. He falls to the ground and, lying on his back, he stares up at the canopy above. Alexander's vision turns to a reddish pink, and the camera then adopts this bright colour, with the next few minutes of footage entirely bathed in pink. Believing Alexander is dead, his previously reluctant men charge forward to
attack with brutal effect.
We hear from Ptolemy's voice over that this was Alexander's bloodiest battle, and the colouring effect is obviously used to lessen the blood splattering. This effect can be compared to the black and white samurai fight sequence in Kill Bill, where Tarantino diluted the blood splattering by dulling down the onscreen colour. However, in Alexander, the reddish pink is extremely bright, and I actually found myself wincing while trying to watch these scenes on the big screen. I found it difficult to know what was going on and so obviously this effect didn't really work for me. Overall, while I do applaud Stone for trying something different with this Indian battle, I definitely preferred the Battle of Gaugamela sequence out of the two.
Deaths of Hephaistion and Alexander
As mentioned above, Stone focussed on some of the conspiracies surrounding Alexander's life, and another of these was the circumstances of Hephaistion's death. He takes ill, and the doctor doesn't know why, suggesting that perhaps undrinkable water was mixed with his wine. Alexander is highly distraught and demands that the doctor be executed. Alexander is inconsolable and desperate to find the reason. Hephaistion dies and, while at his side, Alexander looks at cup of wine beside his bed. Immediately, he confronts Roxane and demands to know if she poisoned him. Roxane insists she did not, and pleads with him not to harm her. She then reveals that she bears his son. After years of trying desperately to conceive an heir, Alexander does not care. All that matters now is that Hephaistion is dead. The film then implies that as Alexander, like his hero Achilles, has lost his true love, Alexander now, like Achilles, feels he must follow his lover to the grave.
We next see Alexander at banquet with a huge cup of wine. He makes a toast to his men, looks down at the wine, and hesitates in drinking it. He seems to know there's something wrong with it but, regardless, drinks the lot. He then falls to the floor and, in the next scene, Alexander is writhing around on his
death bed. He is looking up at a ceiling fan bearing a large winged figure. His men are frantically buzzing around him, asking him over and over to name a successor. Alexander is
delirious and can barely speak. He can't be understood and the men grow more and more violent with each other. We see
a desperate Roxane being dragged away, yelling out that she only has three months to go before his son is born. But Alexander is oblivious. He hallucinates and we see flashbacks from his life. His vision becomes more and more hazy until, finally, he holds up his red jewelled ring that Hephaistion gave him, and we see
an image of the golden eagle from the Battle of Gaugamela fly out from the ceiling fan to take the ring in its beak. At this very moment, Alexander's arm falls to
his side, the ring drops from his hand, and he dies.
There is immediately conflict between Alexander's men as they fight over his body and between themselves. We hear from
Ptolemy's voiceover that Alexander's kingdom is eventually divided into four. Roxane and her son are later killed, as is Olympias. The world carries on without Alexander, but his influence will never be forgotten. The film finishes with
Ptolemy's musings about the man he thought Alexander was, and all that he had achieved.
Conclusion
Overall, I believe Oliver Stone made a valiant attempt to bring the story of Alexander the Great to the big screen. I do not think the film deserved such harsh criticism from US critics. Indeed, I think it is a shame the movie received such negative press, as I do believe this has somewhat effected the rest of the world's reception. Yes, Alexander has its faults and, at 175 minutes, the three hour running time is perhaps a little difficult for non-history buffs to endure. The story can be difficult to follow without concentration, and some of the acting and plot is a little off the mark. Also, personally, I would have preferred to have seen more of Alexander's 'tough' side. I would have liked more of a focus on his leadership abilities rather than his personal life. His relationships with Olympias and Hephaistion received a lot of screen time, perhaps more than was really needed. As a result, I do believe too much time was devoted to Alexander's emotional side and, as a result, the character could perhaps have been mistakenly conveyed as a little bit 'soft'.
However, Alexander definitely has its great moments, including some brilliant set pieces and the magnificent Battle of Guagamela sequence. I cannot speak to how accurately history was reflected in this film, but it seems Stone tried to cover as much as possible in the limited time scale he had to work with. In doing so, he has made some assumptions that not all historians will agree with. But hey, you can't please everyone all of the time, and it was inevitable that there would be some backlash to this film based purely on its subject matter. As a result, this film will soon be forgotten by many, but hopefully remembered by a few, thereby making an impact on at least some people who will go on to celebrate Alexander as another one of Oliver Stone's controversial but accomplished works.
________________________________
HOME
________________________________