Rebutting Myself

[Nicator]

Hello All,
Recently, I made what I would consider a scathing post against Oliver Stone and his epic "Alexander". I just finished watching the special edition DVD, and must admit that I was absolutely blown away. I actually wept (usually worse than vomiting for me). I think when I first saw the film I was somewhat impressed with the script, but could not get over my complete disappointment over the compression of events. Still, I must admit, it was a hell of a job to make that work as well as it did. This may be on e of the best scripts ever written. So, Mr. Stone, my apologies, and my sincere congratulations on an achievement that will, I believe, be remembered as perhaps one of the best swords and sandals epics ever made. You will probably never read this, but, just the same, I want to say thank you for your vision...it inspires. later Nicator

[Efstathios]

Well...i saw it and i must admit that seeing it as a whole (i mean the extended version)is better than the original.But the main reasons for which i didnt like the original apply here also.Alexander's story and persona is not to be taken so light and being misleaded by the holywood based world.But after all,you wont probably hear anything different from a greek... If you make a film,make it as it is supposed to be and not how the world wants it to be...

[davey1]

Hello Nicatur, Good for you! Seen as a documentary Stone's film exhibits many flaws. Viewed as an artistic drama in which historical elements are mixed with fiction to present a moving and, I think plausible, character study, the film succeeds. I do think, however, that the introspective, insecure Alexander featured in the movie leaves one wondering why so many people followed him, were so devoted to him, or were frightened of him. Best wishes, David

[amyntoros]

Wow Nicator, that's some about-face, going from "having loathing for Oliver and his blight" to being "absolutely blown away." Ah well, as one of the few who actually liked the movie in the beginning, I welcome you to the fold. It's not much of a fold though. . . more like a "crease". . . LOLATBAmyntoros

[ruthaki]

Hi Nick, yes, I saw the film 3 times and enjoyed it more each time. I haven't seen the DVD but will one day and look forward to having it in my collection. Of course there were so many good aspects of A's life left out, but it wouldn't all fit into a movie-length feature; and there were some flaws in casting etc, but in all I was fascinated and enjoyed it so very much.

[karen]

Have to hand it to you, Nick, for being honest and open about your flip-flop and giving credit where you now feel it's due, despite denying it before!Having seen both I noticed there is a huge difference, and it's all in the editing. The director's cut is coherent, and that coherence seems to require the 45 minutes that were hacked out for the theatrical version. In the director's cut I actually saw what Stone was trying to do with the storyline -- not jump around mindlessly, but maintain a double and parallel storyline, drawn from two different phases of Alexander's life -- and it works. Because that version actually flows, you are drawn in emotionally, as the theatrical version's sheer confusion makes impossible. I'm sure that's why it got your tears flowing.I also liked that he got rid of the stupidest parts of that wedding night scene, the part that I hated the most. It still isn't great, being too much like a garden-variety rape in my opinion, but it's better. I still think there are some boners in the script, Alexander's formidable side is mostly missing, and you don't get Hephaistion's and his motivations for loving each other.Still, sword and sandals epics aren't known for their thematic subtleties and ambiguities, but this one has them in spades, and I had to appreciate that. I think Stone did really well with a very, very difficult subject -- then, sadly, had to hack it to hell for whatever political or length-related reasons, for the theatres... a tragedy, really. I tell everyone to stay away from the theatrical version and watch the director's cut.Companionably,
Karen

[elpinice]

Hey,Thanks for the advice, Karen. I've seen the theatrical version, and enjoyed it, but found it annoying at the same time. There was so much that they missed out! I've always thought that anybody wanting to make a movie about Alexander should take a leaf out of Peter Jackson's book, and make two movies, or even three! I look forward to watching the Director's cut, and a little more film time.Elpi

[Nicator]

i Karen, "Have to hand it to you, Nick, for being honest and open about your flip-flop and giving credit where you now feel it's due, despite denying it before!"It was important for me to hear Stone's dialogue (voice over) to understand why he did what he did, and also, to know that he understood the complexities of the subject. That in itself was huge for me to be able to take a different viewpoint and enjoy the work as more of a piece of art. His use of allusion was extensive, and again, as an artist, that really works to color the work. Though some of his allusions were perhaps unnecessary, they were consistent. This was one area that he fixed in the director's cut. Like all great poets, he's improved his work. I think, unfortunately, too late. The way the director's cut looks might be Oscar worthy, clearly better than Troy, and at least as good as Gladiator (in some ways far better, in others, perhaps, not quite there). "Because that version actually flows, you are drawn in emotionally, as the theatrical version's sheer confusion makes impossible. I'm sure that's why it got your tears flowing."As an artist, working alone, for over 4 years on my epic, I felt a commonality with Stone. In that he has reached and tried and given us a piece of himself and his incredible subject. Sure, he has had help. Teams of assistants and specialists of every sort, but the overall creation was his. For me, when I get into a tough spot, aside from this forum and whatever books I may have available, I am alone and have to struggle through to some satisfactory conclusion...for better or worse (I'd like to think mostly for better). I guess my point is that that commonality of purpose moved me, perhaps as much as the film itself (especially all of the attention to detail, even to the snake biting the eagle at the end). I liked his allusion to Prometheus as a friend to man. I wasn't aware of the myth of Prometheus, so had to do a little reading on that one. This is artistic, but for my work, I've tried to stick to mythological figures that Alexander (or the histories) would have been involved with on some level, and to my knowledge, Prometheus was not one of them. Still, that's just a preference, not a necessity. "I also liked that he got rid of the stupidest parts of that wedding night scene"Yep, that scene was vastly improved. As were many others. The dance of Bagoas, beautiful though it was, he cut down a bit as it didn't need to

[Nicator]

Hi Karen, "Have to hand it to you, Nick, for being honest and open about your flip-flop and giving credit where you now feel it's due, despite denying it before!"It was important for me to hear Stone's dialogue (voice over) to understand why he did what he did, and also, to know that he understood the complexities of the subject. That in itself was huge for me to be able to take a different viewpoint and enjoy the work as more of a piece of art. His use of allusion was extensive, and again, as an artist, that really works to color the work. Though some of his allusions were perhaps unnecessary, they were consistent. This was one area that he fixed in the director's cut. Like all great poets, he's improved his work. I think, unfortunately, too late. The way the director's cut looks might be Oscar worthy, clearly better than Troy, and at least as good as Gladiator (in some ways far better, in others, perhaps, not quite there). "Because that version actually flows, you are drawn in emotionally, as the theatrical version's sheer confusion makes impossible. I'm sure that's why it got your tears flowing."As an artist, working alone, for over 4 years on my epic, I felt a commonality with Stone. In that he has reached and tried and given us a piece of himself and his incredible subject. Sure, he has had help. Teams of assistants and specialists of every sort, but the overall creation was his. For me, when I get into a tough spot, aside from this forum and whatever books I may have available, I am alone and have to struggle through to some satisfactory conclusion...for better or worse (I'd like to think mostly for better). I guess my point is that that commonality of purpose moved me, perhaps as much as the film itself (especially all of the attention to detail, even to the snake biting the eagle at the end). I liked his allusion to Prometheus as a friend to man. I wasn't aware of the myth of Prometheus, so had to do a little reading on that one. This is artistic, but for my work, I've tried to stick to mythological figures that Alexander (or the histories) would have been involved with on some level, and to my knowledge, Prometheus was not one of them. Still, that's just a preference, not a necessity. cont'd...

[Nicator]

"I also liked that he got rid of the stupidest parts of that wedding night scene"Yep, that scene was vastly improved. As were many others. The dance of Bagoas, beautiful though it was, he cut down a bit as it didn't need to be quite so disturbingly graphic, but it still works. I have the luxury as a writer to expound on certain scenes to exemplify Alexander's greatness. As a movie director, I don't know how it can be done. There are some limitations to the genre, and that's just the way it is. later Nicator

[azara]

Please, Karen, to which version did you refer when you wrote:
"The director's cut is coherent, and that coherence seems to require the 45 minutes that were hacked out for the theatrical version. In the director's cut I actually saw what Stone was trying to do with the storyline -- not jump around mindlessly, but maintain a double and parallel storyline, drawn from two different phases of Alexander's life -- and it works."?
In Italy only the theatrical version has been issued on DVD; I looked on the internet and found a director's cut DVD 6 minutes (or 8 according to other websites, it's not clear) shorter than the theatrical version. No DVD ,for all I know, is actually longer than the theatrical version, or am I mistaken? I'm afraid I'm losing my bearings with these DVDs! Thank you and all the best Azara

[Paralus]

I saw the cinematic version in what is termed a "cine-lounge". Comfortable lounge chairs, food and drink. Having begun with a light beer and nachos, I soon found the need for a bottle of Shiraz. The experience from an historical point of view was frustrating at best and downright misleading at worst. I mean, the bloke near died at the Granicus and had his supply line cut at Issus, yet nary a mention in the Hollywood-conquer-the-Persian Empire in the one confrontation at Gaugamela Stone epic.As well, the historical consultant for the film was Robin Lane Fox whose "biography" of Alexander tends to the "brotherhood of man" end of the scale in dealing with the nature of the man. Possibly this colours the view of Alexander in the film and contributes to the "wishy-washy" or "introspective and insecure" nature of the character. I tend toward Peter Green's description of Alexander ( Alexander of Macedon - unsure whether hyperlinks/html formatting allowed) as "not only the most brilliant (and ambitious) field commander in history, but also supremely indifferent to all those administrative excellences and idealistic yearnings foisted upon him by later generations, especially those who found the conqueror, tout court, a little hard upon their liberal sensibilities". Quite so (Green's monograph "Alexander to Actium" is possibly the work on the Hellenistic age).I must see the 'director's cut' if only to note whether in an extra forty-five minutes Issus and Granicus get more than a rearward glance by an ageing Ptolemy or whether the one lasting relationship in his life (to leave aside his rather poisonous mother) GÇô that with Hephaestion GÇô is rendered as anything more than a pair of slightly bewildered adolescents playing at real emotion (which it appears in the cinematic version).I realise the exigencies of Hollywood film making lead to short cuts and compressions. That granted, the cinematic version's view was muddled, dispensed with history as needed (aforementioned battles and the near mortal wounding at Hydaspes to mention two) and failed to really come to grips with the man. That partly is due to the major combat scenes revolving around the great victory at Gaugamela and Hydaspes. Possibly a short scene or two illustrating the slaughter of the Thebans (and subsequent razing of Thebes) and of some eighteen thousand Greek mercenaries in the Persian army at Granicus may have knock

[Paralus]

Evidently a posting limit? (And no, html and hyperlinks not allowed) The end follows...Possibly a short scene or two illustrating the slaughter of the Thebans (and subsequent razing of Thebes) and of some eighteen thousand Greek mercenaries in the Persian army at Granicus may have knocked the idealistic edge off? Granted, the "you're either with Alexander or you're with the Persians" thread may have proven too close to the Bush administration's "terrorist" line for even Stone to run.
Still, I shall most likely purchase the DVD to see if forty-five minutes can indeed maketh the movie. Better, maybe I should rent it?

[marcus]

The Director's cut is not 45 minutes longer than the theatrical version - sorry, folks. It is about 6 minutes longer - Stone cut out around 12 minutes of the theatrical version, and inserted around 18 minutes of new footage. That's all ... but the editing tidied the whole thing up nicely, indeed!All the bestMarcus

[azara]

I'm quoting from Amazon.com:"Oliver Stone's director's cut of Alexander is unusual in that it's actually shorter than the theatrical version (167 minutes to 175). That's apparent early, as 15 minutes of footage--largely political manipulations and such--have been removed from the first hour of the movie, and it's an improvement to get to the action more quickly."
The version we saw in Italian cinemas lasted 173 minutes, and is exactly the same that has recently been issued on DVD in Italy. If Stone has simply cut 6 minutes I'm not much interested in this director's cut; if he substituted some of the previous material with other scenes, it's another matter. By the way, while trying to understand something about these DVDs, I found this site http://www.salogel.com/Alexander/site/s ... .htmlwhere a guy apparently collected some new scenes from the director's cut, such as "A. reading an Aristoteles' letter","A. honouring the gods" etc. Are these scenes in the director's cut version? As for the "Beckoning Bagoas" scene, in Italy we had the privilege to see it in the cinemas ; for what I know, the film is being shown also in schools, and nothing happens to public morality (nothing worse than what happened before, I mean). All the best Azara