Alexander the Great. It’s hard to really grasp his place
in history. How important was he? Naturally, people will cite
the superhuman feats of leadership, which led him to conquer
most of southern Asia into India. However, some of the unseen
effects also had worldwide significance. Bringing the Greek
language to the Middle East, and specifically Judea, made
it possible for the philosophy/theology of Jesus to reach
a broader audience in Rome, some 340 years after Alexander
died. Wrap your noodle around that for a moment.
 These
are simply a couple of examples of Alexander’s vast
achievements and lasting legacy. Since I am a tremendous admirer
of Alexander, and also a fan of the works of Oliver Stone,
I eagerly anticipated the release of this film. I had high
hopes that it would be more entertaining than the limp Troy,
and put Ollie back on the path to success that he seemed to
have meandered off of sometime around 1995.
Bottom line: Man, was I disappointed. I should
say, first, that the acting was excellent. The problem is
the desperate need for contemporary relevance in film, and
the grafting of American social sensibilities on people who
died about 1,700 years before North America was even discovered.
 I’m
beginning to become annoyed at filmmakers that seem to desperately
seek any way possible to force some kind of modern relevance
into their films. Maybe it’s the trend in Hollywood
to make guerilla political statements in the guise of a movie.
I don’t like it. I want to watch a movie to escape reality,
not draw parallels to modern problems. Yes, Alexander was
a great wartime leader, but the message I ended up taking
away from Stone’s story was a leader’s unbridled
ambition is fatal, and that such warriors will always fight
one battle too many (as if George Bush was listening).
Stone’s personal interjections were also
somewhat distracting. An overly domineering and abusive father
figure who turns his back on his family in Philip II (played
marvelously by Val Kilmer,) smacks more of Stone’s unresolved
daddy issues than actual reality. In the final analysis, Oliver
seems to egotistically recreate Alexander in his own image.
It’s a different take on one of the most significant
figures in the history of the world, I certainly never imagined
Alexander whining his way across south Asia.
 While
I appreciate an effort to be relevant to modern America, I
have to disagree with the use of American feelings and sensibilities
in a film about a man who lived in the 330s B.C. To put that
in perspective, chronologically, the Greeks of the 4th century
B.C. were closer to the Jewish enslavement in Egypt than the
discovery of America. The culture was different. The tension
caused by the homosexual theme, which ran through the whole
movie like a rainbow ribbon, is a sham. News flash: Greek
men liked to have sex with adolescent boys. It’s a well-known
fact. Hell, Plato wrote a book about it. Greek men were omnisexual,
and Alexander was no different. Americans frown on this, but
the men in Alexander’s army would not have cared a bit
who he was sleeping with, which is quite a departure from
what we see in the film. Stone’s presentation of Alexander’s
sexual confusion is simply misleading. Alexander was (according
to the only sources available) just as comfortable with women
as men. Again, this need to have political and social relevance
is more distracting than interesting.
 |
That’s just scratching the surface
of the historical contrivances that Alexander dreams up in
order for Stone to do a character study of himself. And one
last thing Mr. Stone, not everyone’s death is an assassination
and/or the product of a conspiracy. For the love of God, man,
let it go.
Video
As far as the video goes, I
thought the film was artistically shot, with beautiful vistas,
ornate clothing and costumes, and one of the most interesting
methods of showing a developing battle on the field during
the scene of the Battle of Gaugamela. Some of the special
effects are contrived, but all in all I thought the filming
was quite good.
Audio
The audio on the standard disc has a Dolby Digital 5.1 track
that is also very good. The rear channels are put to the test
in the battle scenes, but still maintain enough ambiance in
the non-war scenes to be useful. There is one scene in particular
(where Alexander is wheedling his soldiers to cross the river
into India) where the rear channel was added to give the crowd
more depth (since they were being silent). That particular
scene came off as fake, but it’s the exception, not
the rule.
Conclusion
So,
if you’re looking for some entertainment that’s
two parts Braveheart, a dash of Gladiator and a pinch of Troy, and has almost no connection
to reality, this might be the film for you. If you want to
learn about Alexander himself, sadly, you’ll not get
it from this eponymous film.
|
