Oliver Stone and Alexander movie

[I of Macedon]

I’m not sure if this review by Borza of the movie Alexander (Directed by Oliver Stone) has been mentioned on this site before, nevertheless it’s worthy of mentioning again, considering also the whole Filla, or was it Billa, actually I believe it was Miller - the guy with the hpd qualification, sorry, it was the PHPCDPDPP..., close enough....

Anyway, back to the review...


Review of Alexander – excerpts


...The script is inconsistent in describing the ethnicity and cultural aspirations of the army of conquest. The personnel and their goals are sometimes referred to as “Greek” solely, sometimes as “Macedonian” solely, and often by both terms. This must be terribly confusing to an audience not experienced in the nuances of Greek-Macedonian relationships in antiquity. The ancient sources make clear distinctions between Greeks and Macedonians in Alexander’s train. The problem is compounded by several references to the goal of establishing a unity and reconciliation between Greeks and barbarians. This is, simply put, wrong, and in contrast to Alexander’s own prayer at Opis in 324 BC that there be established a coalition between the two ruling classes of Europe and Asia: Macedonians and Persians. Greeks are not mentioned. Was there no coordination among the three script writers on these issues? The film characters of both Alexander’s mother, Olympias, and his general and successor Ptolemy, are made to call our hero “Alexander the Great,” whereas in fact “Great” was not added to the conqueror’s name until much later, in Roman times.

Stone, his co-writers, and advisor Robin Lane Fox have attempted to attribute to Alexander some noble purpose, some lofty justification for the Macedonians’ bloody tromp across Asia. Part of this is a conscious rejection of what Lane Fox has repeatedly attacked as the recent “minimalist” trend among Alexander scholars, articulated so forcefully by Ernst Badian, Brian Bosworth, Peter Green, and others. Perhaps one reason for the apparent happy collaboration between Stone and his historical advisor is that they shared a need to give meaning to Alexander’s conquests, even where there wasn’t any. And so they fell back on that tired old saw, a version of the Brotherhood of Mankind theory, an idea strongly advocated in the mid-twentieth century by the late W.W. Tarn, but which has been thoroughly discredited by most modern scholars as not being rooted in the evidence from antiquity.

The problem for Stone & Co. was that, lacking any purpose beyond conquest for its own sake, they would have been saddled with an Alexander who was little more than a brilliant commander travelling an endless path of conquest. And so the film’s creators adopted a corollary to Tarn’s Noble Purpose, that Alexander’s mission was to spread Greek culture into the nether regions of the world. A sober review of the evidence from antiquity, however, suggests something quite different: there is no doubt that Alexander, who had been a pupil of Aristotle and who continued to be devoted to Homer and Euripides, was enamored of Greek culture. This is part of his personal baggage, but it is not a component of his policy. That is, there is a difference between what Alexander himself held dear, and what he intended for the rest of the world. This is not to deny that, as a result of Alexander’s Asian conquests, Hellenism spread, in greater or lesser degree, into Egypt and western Asia. But this is a by-product of Alexander’s passage, as his overthrow of Persian rule removed the long-time bloc against the spread of Greek culture into the East. One wonders why Stone and Lane Fox were unable to recognize what Alexander’s own army saw so clearly: there was no point to it all. And so the army mutinied on the Indian frontier, refusing to go further.

[Daskalot]

Thank you for bringing forth this information I of Macedon, I have never read this before.

[Magedon]

Me neither. And he brings up valid points!

[Karposh]

Oliver Stone's Alexander - A Critical Review

There was another showing of Oliver Stone’s Alexander recently on one of the digital TV channels. And, despite my reservations, I decided to suffer through it one more time with the disappointments of the previous viewings still fresh in my mind. I figured that, if I lowered my expectations and kept an open mind, I might just enjoy it this time around. It wasn’t to be unfortunately. Just like opening a fridge over and over again, in the futile hope that you might find something you like inside the next time you open it. The same empty and disappointing feeling washed over me once more. There are just too many glaring and avoidable blunders and omissions that make this movie really hard to enjoy.
Firstly, the casting was all wrong. Alexander, played by a bleached blonde Colin Farrell with matching bleached eyebrows was a casting joke. Colin’s attempt to capture the modern-day preconceived idea of Alexander’s character as a maniacal, mummy’s boy is embarrassing. Alexander has remained an enigma to historians and people in general to this very day. To pigeon-hole his personality as a crack-pot bent on serving his own image and glory, I think is really unfair.
Val Kilmer, playing the role of King Philip, is all wrong for this part as well. The image of an effeminate and delicate-looking Val Kilmer is hardly the portrait of King Philip II of Macedonia, “The greatest man in Europe”, as described in the ancient texts. All the fake battle scars, make up and special effects in the world can’t disguise the fact that the character playing Philip in this movie is soft. Not convincing at all. Worse still, is the depiction of Philip as an obnoxious and alcoholic moron who has no control over his faculties. Again, really unfair. I think he deserves a bit more credit than that. Yes, Philip loved a drink but he was hardly a degenerate alcoholic and a savage. He was much more civil than the movie gives him credit for. The ancient sources describe Philip as a shrewd and master tactician who was always one step ahead of his enemies. He was also an incredibly skilled diplomat who could be very charming. If the aim was to portray a barbarian, because that’s what Greeks called him, I think the producers have completely missed the point. In Alexander’s time, the word barbarian had a completely different meaning to the meaning that is conjured up in our minds today. It didn’t mean wild and uncultured brutes. It simply meant someone who wasn’t Greek, or more precisely, someone who’s native tongue wasn’t Greek.
As for Angelina Jolie playing Olympia, I actually think she was a pretty good choice for the part. Ange made a great Olympia. I had no problem with the casting in this case. What I had a problem with, and made me cringe every time, was whenever she opened her mouth and spoke in that awful eastern European accent. She sounds like the bride of Count Dracula.
Then there is Alexander’s entourage, played by the rest of the cast. This too is a hard sell as the invincible Macedonian generals. Not convincing at all.
Secondly, when people pay their twenty bucks to go and watch a movie, they do so with the hope of being entertained. Oliver Stone missed the opportunity on this occasion to provide an escape into another world filled with numerous and exciting battle scenes, skirmishes and sieges. Instead, he provides us with mundane aspects of the campaign and unnecessary details of Alexander’s life such as his supposed homosexual leanings.
I say supposed because it is only speculation by one or two of the ancient writers that suggests his childhood friend Hephaestion was also his lover. Nothing specific is ever mentioned or, indeed exists. Only innuendo is ever used on a few separate occasions. Besides some subtle hinting, there is only one occasion where strong innuendo is ever used. The source comes to us from an alleged letter to Alexander by Diogenes of Sinope, in which he accuses Alexander of being "ruled by Hephaestion's thighs”. Why the director felt it was vital to include this obscure quote in the movie is beyond me.
The homosexual theme seemed to be unnecessarily pervasive through out the movie. Even at Philip’s wedding to the young Cleopatra we are treated to a gay rape scene. It was off-putting, to say the least, and left you scratching your head trying to work out where this impromptu wedding scene is referenced by the ancient authors.
More to the point, however, was it really necessary to go there at all? I just can’t understand why Oliver Stone invested such a big chunk of the movie’s time to concentrate on such banal details. It almost seems as though there was a deliberate agenda to push a homosexual theme in the movie. Is it any wonder why the movie flopped so badly? If the aim was to be brutally honest about Alexander’s life, then there are many aspects to it that the movie could have explored instead of entertaining such unsavoury ancient theories.
And let’s not even talk about some of the ridiculous monologues and dialogues intertwined with a mixed up chronology of events and wrongly attributed quotes. Put simply, an Alexander movie should be less “soap opera” and more of an action-packed feast for the senses with lots of blood and guts and gore, with preferably an R rating. It’s not like there is a lack of action to choose from. By trying to delve into the psychology of the main characters and attributing dialogue to them of which we know very little about is laughable. I feel like there has been a huge missed opportunity by Oliver Stone to create a potentially epic cinematic masterpiece. The audience should have been left wanting more, not complaining that the movie was too long.
Thirdly, more effort should have been invested in correctly portraying the phalanx formations and engagements. The very little that we see of this ancient equivalent to a modern day tank is shown very poorly. Firstly, the Macedonian weapon of mass-destruction, the sarisa, does not look right. By all accounts, it was approximately 5.5m in length. The sarisas that the Macedonians are shown holding look short of that mark.
Then there is the embarrassingly inept scene of a phalanx engagement going nowhere. The phalanx worked on its momentum. If it stalled, it was useless. Instead of the sarisa, the pezhetairoi may as well have been holding on to their you-know-what.
Also, something that is not shown in the movie is the correct usage of the sarisa. If we are to believe that the Macedonian phalanx was an invincible and terrifying war machine then a more concerted effort should have been made to get all the intricacies of a phalanx engagement depicted correctly. The sarisas of the first five rows of the pezhetairoi units protruded well beyond the first row of the phalanx. It was as if each man in the first row wielded five weapons instead of one. When the Macedonian phalanx formations were on the move, the soldiers didn’t just hold their sarisas with a notable lack of purpose, as depicted in the movie, and hope that the enemy would voluntarily impale itself onto them. They would have used a continuous thrusting motion as they slowly made their way forward, picking out their victims in advance, skewering and releasing them before setting their sights on to the next poor sods.
I remember sitting down to watch the movie for the first time and how excited I was. I was expecting to behold never-before-seen battle scenes and being transported into the battles themselves. I was hoping to become a part of the phalanx war machine, feeling every moment of the adrenalin-filled and aggressive intensity of the Macedonians’ fight for survival against impossible odds. Instead, I got a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it, dust-covered, confused and unconvincing experience from the point of view of an eagle flying above. Barely visible action of stagnant men holding, what looked like, harmless sticks hardly constitutes realistic battle scenes.
An added element of realism would have been to include the incredible noise that we are told the Macedonians made as they marched forward. This was apparently as terrifying as the weapons themselves. With each thrust of the sarisa, the Macedonians would have let out a deafening and blood-curdling roar. This too was a tactic of war. A psychological weapon, perfected by Philip, that was designed to demoralise the enemy.
As the phalanx went forward, any of the injured enemy soldiers that lay strewn on the bloody ground would have been finished off by the remaining rows of the phalanx, who held their sarisas upright. They would have done this by crushing their enemy’s skulls with the butt spikes attached to the ends of their sarisas.
It’s a real shame we didn’t get to see all of these essential details. It would’ve added such a huge element of realism. When you think about it, Alexander is synonymous with conquest and war and yet a very small portion of the movie was allocated to convey this action. And I use the word “action” loosely. Most of the close-to three hours of time was given to unnecessary crap instead of mind blowing battle scenes with proper depictions of ancient Macedonian war tactics. It would’ve been really nice to witness all of this terrible violence and the reality of ancient warfare by capturing the essence of the phalanx in action. By depicting the phalanx in all its militaristic glory and gruesome efficiency in a more accurate and detailed showing would have definitely enhanced the quality of the movie. A fleeting and dusty scrimmage is a poor excuse for a proper phalanx engagement and does not do this specialised Macedonian war tactic justice.
And finally, Colin Farrell trying to inspire his men with “for the glory of Greece”. For me personally, that was the final nail in the coffin of this movie. Some of the nonsense mentioned in the movie is almost too painful to sit through. From dialogue that dedicates the Macedonians’ conquest of Persia for “the glory of Greece” to mosaic maps depicting a greater Greece that incorporates all of Macedonia and other non-Greek Balkan regions. It’s as if the Greek ministry of culture was either advising or co-directing the movie with Oliver Stone.
Actually, knowing that the unashamed philhellene Robin Lane Fox was on set to provide advice, it comes as no surprise. To hear some of Robin’s views regarding today’s Macedonia issue leaves one feeling that he might as well be on the Greek public service payroll.
There is no doubt that Macedonia and, consequently, Alexander are highly politicised subjects today. However, that is not the fault of the ancient Macedonians who made their mark on the world as Macedonians and nothing else but Macedonians. It was a disgrace to portray them and their achievements as Greek. In the movie.
The 7,000 Greek conscripts in Alexander’s army, which Alexander reluctantly took with him as hostages for the good behaviour of their Greek city-states of origin, were never used in the front lines. Alexander even left them behind on his first pitched battle against the Persians at the river Granicus. He reasoned that he could not trust their loyalties when faced against the thousands of Greek mercenaries in the Persian ranks. It was too much kin against kin.
As a matter of fact, Alexander made sure to press the point to the Greeks, before he ventured away from Macedonia, what would become of them if they rebelled against him by completely destroying Greek Thebes, which dared to be free. No doubt, he made this example “for the glory of Greece”. It is a fact too that, before he left Macedonia, Alexander left a sizeable part of his army to the capable general Antipater to protect Macedonia and make sure that the Greeks didn’t try to regain their independence.
It is also a fact that Alexander did not trust the Greeks and cared very little for them. This is mainly because he knew the feelings were mutual. He knew that, in the eyes of the Greeks, this farce, this pathetic excuse for attacking Persia and of avenging the Greeks was a blatantly transparent propaganda piece.
The real reason Alexander and his Macedonians set out to conquer Persia was for power and riches. By the time Babylon, Susa and Persepolis were in Alexander’s hands, the Macedonians were in possession of hundreds of years of accumulated Persian treasure. The ancient sources describe the incredible combined amount of 180,000 talents of gold. When you consider that one talent is equivalent to 26kg today, then that is a jaw-dropping 4,680 tonnes of gold.
It wasn’t just gold either. There were also other valuable treasures to be had such as silver, precious objects, expensive dresses, and one of the most precious and rare commodities of ancient times, purple cloth. In fact, the ancient sources speak of 5,000 talents worth of fine purple cloth. I have no idea what all of this might be worth in terms of money today but my guess would be hundreds of billions of dollars.
The only other thing I wanted to say about the movie is that no one likes to be lectured. Yes, it is important to be historically accurate regarding the subject matter but not at the risk of trying to dispense with a history lesson. Especially when the lesson being dispensed is politically motivated. The cynic in me saw the history lessons provided by an ageing Ptolemy, complete with the wise-old-man make-over as nothing more than a tool by the Greek government to push their “Macedonia is Greece” agenda. To the uninitiated, this was just a harmless attempt to provide some historical context to the movie. However, there is much more going on here than people realise. The intermittent historical commentary provided by Ptolemy is another piece to this plot.
In the politically charged environment that the subject matter of the movie exists today, the Greek government, together with their philhellene supporters, will go to any length to stick their big noses in and portray everything about Macedonia and, by extension, Alexander as Greek. This is by no means a conspiracy theory. It is a fact. As far as the Greek government is concerned, anything to do with Macedonia has to be depicted in a Greek context. If it can’t be shown to be Greek then it can’t be shown at all.
There are many examples of cases where books have been written that go against the Greek government’s point of view where death threats have been given, not just to the authors but to well-known international publishing houses as well for daring to publish such explosive information. A good example of this is the book “Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood” by the Greek author Anastasia Karakasidou. This is a very sinister practise that Europe seems to be turning a blind eye to just to appease these spoilt modern-day Greeks.
The blissfully unaware Sir Anthony Hopkins, playing the part of Ptolemy, is being used here to promote the ultimate Pan-Hellenic ideals of Alexander’s campaign. As a saint of Hellenism, Alexander is being credited with spreading Greek language and culture to the east. Never mind the fact that the Greek language existed as the lingua franca, that is the international language of commerce and diplomacy around the Mediterranean basin and beyond, long before Alexander was even alive. Never mind the fact that Alexander did not trust the Greeks while he was alive and slaughtered them whenever the opportunity presented itself. Never mind the fact that Greeks provided constant obstacles to Alexander through out his campaign.
The ancient Macedonian language, whatever that constituted, did in fact exist in Alexander’s time. The numerous references to it in the ancient sources are testament to it. The fact that Alexander adopted the existing international language of the time for ease of communication in his massive new empire does not diminish its existence. The Macedonian language seems to have been spoken mainly by the uneducated rank and file of Alexander’s army and not so much by the Macedonian elite, who spoke mainly the common language, Koine Greek.
A privileged few, the sons of the Macedonian Aristocracy went through the well known Macedonian institution of the Royal Pages, which was basically a boarding school for the rich and notable members of Macedonian society. These Pages went on to make up part of Alexander’s close entourage as well as commanding positions of various army units. They were educated by the best tutors money could buy, which would have included Greeks. The famous Aristotle was one of those tutors, a native from Stagira, a Greek colonial city on the Macedonian coast. Being the language of literature, Greek would have been the language the Royal Pages were educated in. However, the future Generals of the Macedonian army would still have been fluent in Macedonian otherwise they wouldn’t be able to command their troops, who did not speak Greek.

[Tomche Makedonche]

I agree, it was a terrible movie, I'll add one thing you left out as well, the "heroic" score, completely missed the mark and gave a stench as cheesy as the concept itself. What a total disaster of a cinematic experience

[Amphipolis]

I never saw this film as it was slammed in Greece and was considered a fiasco. If you're so interested maybe you should see the director's cut which, I heard, is very different and extended.

Unfortunately, I have watched (long long time ago) the 1950s film with Richard Burton which I remember as a balanced film, neither good or bad.

[Amphipolis]

The real reason Alexander and his Macedonians set out to conquer Persia was for power and riches.

You wouldn't want them to make this film either. My opinion on his psychological profile is that Alexander was interested in glory and he was drunk with it. I don't see much calculation, concept or plan in his actions.

Also, it is true that (back then) everybody (including Athenians) were wondering if he was God; they were really wondering that and the question was part of the serious debates and councils that were trying to figure out what they should do.



===

[George S.]

I remember how biased oliver stone was when he adopted or was told to represent the greekness of alexander only.ALso there was a lot of gay love going on.I cant stand the irish accents.I liked the 1950s alexander with richard burton.

[Amphipolis]

I remember how biased oliver stone was when he adopted or was told to represent the greekness of alexander only. ALso there was a lot of gay love going on.I cant stand the irish accents.I liked the 1950s alexander with richard burton.

So, how could Stone avoid Alexander's Greekness?

Second, in a biopic, people are interested in someone's identity (psychological, sexual) and personal life, besides his achievements. There's also a very powerful gay lobby in USA, that is probably a reason for exploring a possible homoerotic part of his life (which is frankly unclear and I don’t have an opinion on it).

Lastly, is Richard Burton film different in terms of Greekness? I don't really remember.

[George S.]

The greekness of macedonians is a manufacrured thing.T he most anyone could say is a philhellene rather than an ethnocity.OLiver stone was coaxed by the greek govt to represent it in no other terms.It was a political statement rather than historical situation.The 1955 film was aneutral ie it was alexander the macedonian.not a political statement.

[Karposh]

I know that everything that, perhaps, needed to be said about this movie has already been said and I don’t mean to keep revisiting this thread but I just wanted to add one more annoying omission that was made which was crucial to the scene that was being presented.

Did anyone else feel as cheated as I did by the movie’s omission of the key moment to the “Taming of Bucephalus” scene?

In the ancient sources, the whole point of that episode is captured and wrapped up in what Philip has to say to Alexander at end of that scene. In the movie, the scene concludes with a euphoric and emotional Philip uttering “My boy, my boy”, or something to that effect. And that’s it.

Huh? Are you f***ing kidding me!? Where’s the bit where the proud-as-punch Philip says to Alexander "O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.”

These final words are indispensable to understand the point of this story. They capture the crux moment of this episode and reveal Philip’s true understanding of where he came from and the identity of his son and that of his own. The kingdom of Macedonia is where he and his son came from. A kingdom with a sizeable territory, which Philip realised and foresaw, was obviously not so large as to contain his son, who would go on to surpass him in greatness and in glory.

The whole point of the story was not to show off Alexander’s wonderful horsemanship and amazing courage but to prophesize his greatness to come by emphasising that his country of origin, Macedonia, was not large enough for him to lord over. The point was to show that the young prince from “little” Macedonia would go on to rule the world.

This could only be made clear if Philip’s prophetic words to his son were included in this scene. The fact that they weren’t, once again proves my point about the “Macedonia is Greece” agenda that was driving this movie. It was a crucial part of the scene which was deliberately omitted in an obvious attempt to continue to muddy the crystal clear waters that separate the ethnic divide between Macedonians and Greeks in the ancient sources.

[Dimko-piperkata]

https://youtu.be/6RzhlR6DHp8

[George S.]

Oliver stone is a big wanker producing shit films like alexander with their irish accents.
His rendition cant compare with the 1950s richard burton
Epic.Oliver stones film was a wasted space.