Alexander the Great: A Two Part Movie?

[Phoebus]

You know, I realize that questions like that (who could play Alexander) are difficult to answer, but I think those actors are out there. Case in point? The young man who played Octavian through the first (and some of the second) season of Rome did and excellent--and most convincing, in my opinion--job of portraying a young man with guile, ambition, drive, and ruthlessness beyond his years. Yes, I know he happens to be a tad young--I was pointing out that there are indeed powerful young actors. Not everyone had the pedigrees of Young Anakin.

And I'll do you one more: I'll go so far as to say Collin Farell was an excellent choice for Alexander. I personally feel that most of the problems with his depiction of the character were due to direction and the script of the movie. Farell had virtually nothing to do with Alexander being portrayed as weepy, melodramatic, etc. He executes on the basis of what the material gives him.

[jasonxx]

Rhoebus hi

Be realistic can u wver see the wider audience been interested in Alexander with the picture the mmovie gave.

All people comment tome about Alexander is that he was a [edited] etc etc. And regardless of the PC the majority of the viewers get put of by gayness.

Ok some people argue eqaulity.its normal etc etc. If it were normal how many parents would wish for a gay kid not bloody many.

All those who say they would love a gay child as much maybe would but I doubt they would like the idea.

Stones Alexander had turned him into a cry baby [edited] who no one would touich with a barge poll. A director would be better trying to refloat the Titanic literaly than revive anu real interest in Alexander.... And the Titanic is in2 pieces at the bottom of the sea. Alexander has been smashed in theeyes of the general audiences.

Kenny

[Phoebus]

I don't have to answer the first part of your question, as that's already been done. The American public gave its opinion when it ensured that Alexander made something less than $40 mil in the US. So, quite obviously, no: the "wider audience" would not be interested in a movie that addressed the subject (Alexander) in the way Stone would have liked them to.

That's not what I'm arguing, though. I'm simply stating that, yes, it is possible for subject matter to be re-approached as time passes (a recent example: "I Am Legend" scored great money following the premise of Charlton Heston's "Omega Man", which made much less cash). And yes, there are young actors out there that are more than capable of depicting an intelligent, ruthless Alexander--regardless of his age.

I'm probably beating a dead, obvious horse, but I'm telling y'all right now: if I win the Powerball lottery, I am contacting the kid that played Octavian, and I will convince his parents to put him through a workout regimen until he looks like a late-teens Macedonian monarch. Forget simple political acumen; in one episode, he was able to convey capacity for torture, loyalty toward one's friends and respect for familial traditions, simultaneously, without missing a beat.

Regarding Alexander's sexuality... I think I've offered my opinion enough in previous posts. I simply don't think that it is so important a subject as to merit taking up a director/film-maker's already limited amount of reel-time.

[jasonxx]

Phoebus

I totally agree the young kid played Octavian fantastically... So much so it made me think as clever and great as Alexander was that Octavian guy was one mean clever calculated young man. So much so he went on and ruled for decades and his legacy lasted Centuries.

I think the Rome series gave us some great character Acting as Paralus once said the series got Marc Anthony right on the money. The whole intrigue although a little inventive licencing took place I feel they got the essence of Rome and the whole political goings on.

Octavian was the kind of thinker with a grand plan like Destroying Anthony and Anthony dangling on a string and playing all the wrong chess moves that Octavian wished.

I always loved Bortons narrative.... But it was pretty Clear what the newere version of Octavian had in mind for Cleoplatra.

The series was fantastic and the actors just as fantastic.... I agree but even with meat on the Octavian actor looked a bit to wierdo for me to think him Alexander.

For All the decadesof Actors and the way Kirk Douglas gave us Sparatacus maybe a younger Kirk Douglas with a Richard Burton Voice.


Cheers


kenny

[jan]

Hi Kenny,

To make a really great movie about Alexander, the right great novel must be written. Most good screenplays are based upon a novel, and so far, none has been done that is really great!

But it will probably happen! I just really believe that it can be done.

I just watched 300 again, and this time round, didn't find it quite so great either. I like Steve Pressfield's Gates of Fire best so far. That is a beautifully written tale of Leonidas and has heart.

My main problem with the treatment of Alexander is that Alexander's entire life is based upon his belief in his divinity, his link to the Gods, and that will have to be translated correctly to make the right movie!

[Fiona]

Way too many people are quick to equate "Μεγας/Great" with "Good". Alexander III was probably the most dangerous person of his time... but that doesn't mean that this should make his story any less fascinating... or a movie about it any less enjoyable.

I thought this was a really good point. I don't know if you know the Narnia books, but one of the children asks if Aslan is safe, and a beaver or someone says, "Safe? 'Course he's not safe! But he's good."
A great movie about Alexander has to get across a similar thing. "Good? 'Course he's not good. But he's great."
I love your description of him as probably the most dangerous person of his time.
Fiona

[Penobscott]

Do it! I've been thinking about it for years (that it should be done, not that I would make one). Stone's version was remarkably lacking in so many ways. (A black haired, 40 yr old irishman as Alexander? Gimmie a break.)

Two parts would be enough. Birth thru ascention to the throne as the first part. I see an introduction scene at the Festival of the Mysteries when Philip and Olympias meet, cut to Olympias' prophetic dream while Philip watches through the curtain as she writhes in her sleep with the God beside her in the form of a serpant. From there you could cut right to Alexander greeting the Persians in his father's absense. The central conflict would of course be that between the parents and how Alexander is caught in the middle.

Being crowned through death the second - the central conflict being Alexander's inner conflict. Fiction writers could not come up with a better storyline. There's sex, war, deception, a sympathetic character who undergoes massive changes. The ultimate Rise and Fall story. I encourage you, or anyone with the means and talent to go ahead and pursue it as a serious project.

This is my first entry into this forum and I hope to learn from everyone here. Thank, Penobscott

[Fiona]

Do it! I've been thinking about it for years (that it should be done, not that I would make one). Stone's version was remarkably lacking in so many ways. (A black haired, 40 yr old irishman as Alexander? Gimmie a break.)


This is my first entry into this forum and I hope to learn from everyone here. Thank, Penobscott

hello, nice to meet you - a Harry Potter fan also, by the look of your avatar (if that is the right word for it)
I have not figured out how to do those yet, myself. (I have, now - yay!)
I hate to jump on you the minute you've arrived, but Colin's not 40! Nowhere near. He's only 31 now, and when he was filming 'Alexander' he was only 28, a very good age for an actor who'd be called upon to play Alexander from ages 19 to 32, I thought.
Personally, I thought he looked just fine, and brought Alexander to life in a new and very special way, given the constraints of the script and the material he was given to work with. The Irish accent was very much softened - he can sound a lot broader than that - and OS's idea of using the regional accents to emphasise that the Macedonians were seen as 'provincials', I thought was a clever and effective thing.
Fiona

[Phoebus]

Personally, I thought Farrel both looked the part and acted the part. My complaint is against the direction. Tastes aside, even the best actor can't help but to follow his director's lead, and, in this case, I think Colin did just that.

[karen]

An actor has to work not only from the direction, but from the script. He had some really sucky lines, as did Angelina Jolie.

[jan]

Well, I finally read each and every post so I am still concerned that Rocktupac is going to make a film due to Oliver Stone's attempt. I wonder if Rocktupac has seen the Richard Burton film version.

I will speak up for Colin as doing an adequate portrayal under the direction of Stone, but Stone was helplessly dependent upon Robin Lane Fox for academic understanding, and thus betrayed both himself and Robin Lane Fox in his botched attempt. He simply tried to take on too much at once.

As Rocktupac said, a movie should be a serial study, of both youth and early development, and later successes in his travels. There is just too much for a single one movie attempt to do it right.

I wish you luck. I would love to see movies concentrating on events only and do a more indepth study of a single battle, with a good character development. To me, there was absolutely no character study in the film that Stone produced. He wanted to cram everything into a single epic and could not do it. He seemed to be trying to copy old MGM and Twentieth Century Fox costume movies, and was unable to pull it off well. He made a half-hearted attempt, probably wanting to jump Angelina Jolie's bones more than anything else to be honest.

What some directors won't due to get the damsel of their dreams?

Just a little aside there.

If you have not seen his dvd version of the movie about El Salvador you just won't get it. Oliver is very blunt about his leading ladies and who can or cannot get really close to them.

Anyway, I would rather see a good movie only about the battle at Tyre, the events that led up to it, the actual battle which would be terribly exciting, and some closeups that would make Alexander look as young as he is but as determined and as deadly as he is also.

So good luck in your getting your masters. Can't wait to see what you come up with!

Hope you don't mind as much input from others so that when you finally organize it, you can please a lot of us.

[marcus]

He made a half-hearted attempt, probably wanting to jump Angelina Jolie's bones more than anything else to be honest.

What some directors won't due to get the damsel of their dreams?

There's probably a libel action in there somewhere, Jan. I trust you have the funds sufficient to mount a defence against OS's lawyers.

ATB

[derek]

With Alexander, any movie is going to have the same problems Stone encountered. How do you tell such an involved story without boring the pants off the average movie-going audience? It’s easy to say, “Make half a dozen films”, but they’ve got to be paid for, and Alexander doesn’t have the same level of interest as Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. A one-off sword-and-sandal epic was the best way to get Alexander’s story on screen - and let’s face it, the only reason Alexander was marketable was because Hollywood was looking to cash in on the interest generated by Gladiator.

Any other director would have dumbed it down and trotted out some barely recognizable tat that showed lots of muscular men in skirts. Stone had a special interest in Alexander, so tried to tell the story, but the studios wouldn’t back him for the three or four films the story requires, and that left him with a maximum of 3 hours to show what he could. And of course, that meant skipping certain events and telescoping others into one. For instance, having Alexander’s serious wound occur in a combined Hydaspes/Multan is frequently criticised on this forum, but it’s quite reasonable if you assume he didn’t want to leave out the visual effect of the elephants; there wasn’t time for two battles. It’s often said he should have concentrated on just one event. Yes, but to put that event into any sort of reasonable context, you’d need as many flashbacks as he included in telling the whole story.

Considering the time restraints, I still think Oliver Stone didn’t do that bad a job. I enjoyed the film, and overall I think it told the story well. Yeah, there were a few scenes that didn’t work, the gay aspect flopped with uptight America, and it demanded too much prior knowledge for the general audience to understand it. But those are reasons why the film didn’t make money, and aren’t necessarily a reflection on its quality. In fact, Oliver Stone made a film for people like us, who share his special interest in Alexander the Great.

Derek

[Theseus]

All in all I liked the movie too and agree Stone had some restraints to work with. I thought the final cut was so much better and should have been the version we saw in theaters. So what if there would have been an intermission, I wouldn't have complained. I remember seeing Braveheart and they had an intermission for that one. They didn't want to cut the film to pieces so they kept it the way it was meant to be. I know Stone had pressure to keep it to a certain time frame, but the film did suffer for it. The relationships Alexander had (or supposedly had, dont want to anger anyone) are not fully understood in this day and are considered taboo, but things were different then and I am sure not many movie goers would grasp that fact.

[Fiona]

With Alexander, any movie is going to have the same problems Stone encountered. How do you tell such an involved story without boring the pants off the average movie-going audience? It’s easy to say, “Make half a dozen films”, but they’ve got to be paid for, and Alexander doesn’t have the same level of interest as Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. A one-off sword-and-sandal epic was the best way to get Alexander’s story on screen - and let’s face it, the only reason Alexander was marketable was because Hollywood was looking to cash in on the interest generated by Gladiator.

Agreed - we were lucky to get even one movie. Before 'Gladiator', even Oliver Stone would have been laughed at for the suggestion that a sword and sandal epic could be made and marketed.And for all that, 'Alexander' may have had its faults, but it wasn't dumbed down in the way that 'Troy' was.

Any other director would have dumbed it down and trotted out some barely recognizable tat that showed lots of muscular men in skirts. Stone had a special interest in Alexander, so tried to tell the story, but the studios wouldn’t back him for the three or four films the story requires, and that left him with a maximum of 3 hours to show what he could. And of course, that meant skipping certain events and telescoping others into one. For instance, having Alexander’s serious wound occur in a combined Hydaspes/Multan is frequently criticised on this forum, but it’s quite reasonable if you assume he didn’t want to leave out the visual effect of the elephants; there wasn’t time for two battles. It’s often said he should have concentrated on just one event. Yes, but to put that event into any sort of reasonable context, you’d need as many flashbacks as he included in telling the whole story.

Well said. It could have been a lot, lot worse, in the wrong hands. (I still have a hankering to see what Ang Lee would have made of it, though.) But anyone else would have had the problem of getting a script - seeing that the definitive book has yet to be published - and at least OS with his special interest, was in a position to write a script. Of course that meant he had his own slant to emphasise, his own 'take' to use - the same as any one of us would have done in his position. For a director, it's a very necessary thing to have a vision, of course, and he knew what he wanted to do, and that's good in itself. As you say, he telescoped events, not unreasonably, given that the emphasis of his vision was what Alexander was like and what made him tick, rather than squeezing in all the things he did. Personally I could have done with less of the Oedipus-complex stuff and a bit more action, but then again, rows with your mother are cheaper to film than great big sieges, burning cities etc.

Considering the time restraints, I still think Oliver Stone didn’t do that bad a job. I enjoyed the film, and overall I think it told the story well. Yeah, there were a few scenes that didn’t work, the gay aspect flopped with uptight America, and it demanded too much prior knowledge for the general audience to understand it. But those are reasons why the film didn’t make money, and aren’t necessarily a reflection on its quality. In fact, Oliver Stone made a film for people like us, who share his special interest in Alexander the Great.
Derek

Again, I agree - I enjoyed it too, and I think a bit of prior knowledge really added to the enjoyment. I think I would have been a bit baffled if I hadn't already known the story, and it's plain to see that this was its downfall for some viewers. My own husband, coming out of the cinema, commented, "It didn't tell me why he was Great" and I have to admit that I think that's a fair criticism. But when you say that the reasons it didn't make money are not necessarily a reflection of its quality, I am cheering, because I think it's an underrated masterpiece - again, given the constraints of time and money - which, if it didn't show us all that Alexander was and did, at least showed the world of our generation something of his complex character.
Fiona