By Jason O'Brien jaobrien@charter.net
|
One of the first things that you notice when you watch Alexander is that the typical Stone hyperkinetic visual style is all but gone. Maybe it's because of the change in material, or an attempt to change his own style ... not quite sure. But I must admit that it was missed. We do get some of those glimpses of the Stone of old towards the end of the film, when Alexander is seriously wounded for the first time during a battle in India, and his vision of the world turns red as if to blood. Also, we do get some glimpses every so often of one of my favorite Stone visual techniques of repeating scenes of characters not talking edited into scenes where they are talking. But other than that, this is a pretty much straight-forward narrative, presented in the typical grand fashion that we've grown used to with other epic period films. The history and the story of Alexander the Great is a fascinating one, and as Stone is often interested in, he was a man who achieved so much, and Stone has continually been fascinated by men of great power who make a huge difference in the world, and in bringing us into closer examination of these individuals. But with Alexander, I feel there may be too much history for even Stone to be able to fashion a complete and cohesive film together. The Alexander that Stone ended up creating seemed disjointed in many places, and unfortunately, it seemed to happen most with the relationships that Alexander had in his life, where we do not really see enough of what made them important to Alexander, particularly his homosexual relationship with Hephaistion, played by Jared Leto. It was well known before the film was released that Stone was pretty much forced by the studio to cut back on the homosexuality of the piece, and unfortunately, I think the film suffered as a result. This relationship, which was clearly so important and meant so much to Alexander, needs a lot more background and a lot more interplay, and I wish there wouldn't be such a stigma and worry about trying to portray a serious homosexual on film, especially since this relationship and Alexander's bi-sexuality is a fact of history. So instead, we get hugs, glances, and only one quick male kiss to suggest this part of Alexander's life.
As all of Stone's work has been, the film is incredibly ambitious, and some of the performances are right on par with some of Stone's best work. Colin Farrell in particular makes a very good Alexander, passionate, driven, and charismatic. Angelina Jolie tends to overact in some of her scenes, and unfortunately has an accent that sounds too much like Dracula's mother than Alexander's. But wow, does she ever remain gorgeous. And speaking of gorgeous, Rosario Dawson gives an understated yet fiery performance as Roxane, one of the women who Alexander eventually and mysteriously took as a bride. Val Kilmer is less impressive as King Philip, Alexander's father. The three hour running time of the film flies by, but you can't help but feel you needed more to truly understand this Alexander the Great. I myself wanted to know more about how he rose to power and convinced so many men to follow him into battle over so many years, and to understand what truly drove him to conquer almost the entire known world at such a young age. Like Stone, I also am fascinated by people of vision and power who accomplish their goals, in probing deeper into their lives to find their motivations and faults. We see some glimpses of this in Stone's Alexander, but unfortunately, it does end up feeling too choppy and made up more of historical vignettes and pieces of his life than a true cinematic "whole" experience of this incredible man.
LINKS:
# Of Hits This Page: |
In the end, all that matters is what you've done. This is a quote from the Alexander the Great portrayed in Oliver Stone's first ambitious attempt
to make a period epic from ancient times, delving back into a history far deeper than the more recent political history he has mined in so many of the
films that made him who he is. It had been a dream project of Oliver Stone's for years to make a movie about Alexander the Great,
the notorious King of Macedonia, who overthrew the Persian Empire, the Egyptians, and India over an eight year period. The dream finally became
a reality in 2004 when he delivered his first film in five years, in what was a rare break from cinema for Stone.
Because there is so much history to relay, a lot of it via narration by Ptolemy, played very well actually by Anthony Hopkins, the film instead
feels like more of a history lesson than a pure emotional drama. Stone always imbued his historical dramas with so much of his own personal self and vision,
that you felt that were films torn from his very heart. That's what I feel was missing in Alexander, as if he was detached in some way to
simply present us the history. And as history, the film is a visual marvel. There are two spectacular battle sequences, one set in India towards
the end of the film with the appearance of large, lumbering elephants, and an even better sequence early on in the film at Gaugamela (present day Iraq), where we see
for the first time what a remarkable military leader he actually was (and an admirable one at that, who always rode into combat with his men, something all men
should remember when they send other people to fight and die). The cinematography is gorgeous, the energy of the battle scenes electric. But there
is a great deal of narration and dialogue scenes, almost too many for a battle epic of this scope. The film never bores, and remains fascinating
throughout, particularly for someone learning a lot of this history for the first time.
But again, the film has many strengths. Stone continues to inspire musical scores of wonderful grandeur and splendor and depth, and he does so again with this
film, working with the legendary Vangelis for the first time. Although criticized by some, I felt the score was very appropriate and majestic, and also very
moving at times. The film is still incredibly accomplished and it is a valiant effort by Stone, but it will be interesting to see what kind of change
this film will represent in Stone's career. Another incidental thing I found interesting about this film was the unintentional (?) parallels between
Alexander and the current world situation, especially with a lot of Alexander battles for conquest taking place in areas like the Middle East where
we find ourselves in current conflict in 2004. I found those lessons and the history lessons on display to be very intriguing, and again, we get
a fascinating portrait of this legendary figure of history, but perhaps we could have had more and with perhaps a bit more depth. It is indeed
the powerful work of a master filmmaker, that is without question, but it's a much different Oliver Stone on display in this film, doing his best
to tackle a subject of such awesome historical detail.