A message for Oliver the Stoned!

[Nicator]

I had a long post written, but self-censored myself by deleting it. I've kept quiet about Stone's effuse, passed off as genuine filmaking. There were few scenes worthy of Alexander...or of his greatness. I left the theater on that opening night, after sitting through it twice, with a sick feeling of nausea and anger. What did we do to deserve that? What did Alexander do to deserve that? Stone screwed up nearly every single sacred aspect of the histories. The anacronisms, the over-focus on homosexuality, the botched battles, the botched speeches, the botched film editing, the botched script, the utter failure to provide a great charicature or to develop character. What was Stone thinking. $150 million? Two cents worth of common sense says the entire genre couldn't be done in one film. This was 'well known' and frequently alluded to on this site and many others. They made that mistake in the 1956 epic (of which this one is surprisingly similar). The 1956 epic at least did a somewhat decent job of developing character before rushing to his end. I could go on and on about my genuine loathing for Oliver and his blight, but I'm just going to quietly finish my epic and publish it and set the record straight. It's time someone took a stand and stood up for the great one. No political correctness, no apologies, just the truth about the greatest military genius ever, the man that changed the world, the man that surpassed the gods. later Nicator

[kenny]

Hail I thought that from day one. The replies I got ere admiration for Olivers Stone giving us Alexander The Man.I argue there were are many alexander the man and only one thye great that the people deserved to see.To be honest and have always said Richard Burton gave more authority to Alexanders speaches ans his character.People bemoaned him to be too old but I saw through Burtons age and identified Alexander with his performance and the definate charisma Burton had.Im no Farrel basher hes a pretty boy actor that will do well as SonyCrocket but no way Alexander.However Gaugamela was good but Hydaspes was patchy and in the wrong enviroment.Kenny

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[karen]

Nicator, I want to read the long version

[jan]

What? You don't think that he is a modern day Homer? (LO) I notice that in two publications he is compared to Homer and that this is his version of the Iliad.

[S]

Greetings,For different reasons, I did not enjoy this film, most involve character development or lack thereof, poor editing and script. But......I approached it *as* a movie, but admit I still hoped, at $150 million, for a more historical movie with as much character development of supporting roles as say, Henry V, Lagaan, any one of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or other such films. Instead, in the theatrical version, Stone rushed through so quickly trying to illustrate his interpretation of Alexander's character that we were left with little, if any, but the most over-the-top emotings of other characters. In leaving out defined supporting roles, Stone left many in the audience wondering *why* Alexander reacted as various times as he did.I have also indicated in prior posts that I felt the dialog (sp? sorry, do not have my dictionary at hand!) was so trite that it bordered on the comic. I can appreciate what Stone was trying to achieve, but felt his error was in writing part of the script himnself (is there not a saying about failing to see the forest for the trees? or being too close to a subject? Appropro, in this case) and using Robin Lane Fox as advisor ( I have a sense this was the biggest error). I admit that I weary of seeing Olympiada, a unique woman even for her time, portrayed as bordering on the insane, with no explanation for much of her actions, though I felt the director's version attempted *slightly* more clarification. That said, I was disapointed to see the typical "harridan-scheming witch-power mad" scenario. Tiresome, too, was the repeated Oedeipal/incest nonsense.What few allusions to "homosexual love" were made were minimal and hardly deserved the hue and cry put out both before and after the movie debut. Since these elements *are* mentioned in the sources, it made sense to include them as part of who Alexander *was*. How each viewer interpreted what he or she saw, said more about the viewer than the movie.
Hephaestion was a shadow person, always on the fringes, and that made the scene when he is attacked even more vague (it was edited out of the director's cut) or pointless. Too little explanation, too little character development left him not enigmatic but almost maudlin.Bagoas was another shadow figure, hovering in scenes. The director's cut gives him slightly more screen time alluding to his relationship with Alexander, but this is hardly enough to upset anyone unless they *want* to be upset. I hav

[S]

I have said I found the Roxanne/Alexander "love scenes" laughable; these were toned down in the Director's cut, removing the flashes to the panther (symbolic of Roxanne?) and most of the snarling between the two. I had hoped for more character development of those surrounding Alexander; it would have been interesting to see how Stone interpreted their feelings and attitudes towards Alexander.Some battle scenes were extended in the director's cut, but battle scenes are not an exploration of a person's character unless the 8strategy* of the battle is also shown, so I attribute that to Stone trying to appease/appeal to the "sand and swords" crowd who decried the lack of battle scenes. They were not bad, just not very involving, at least for me (except the death of Bucephalus; this was a terrible scene and worse, would have been a pointless
waste, since the outcome would be so predictable). All this said, what Stone offered was *his* version of what and who *he* feels Alexander was. Each filmmaker and writer always puts more of themself than of the actual characters into a film or book. They can do nothing else. They write from their own views, mores, environment,, gleaning what they can from the sources and then letting imagination create characters based on how *they* feel the people would act. A bit of themselves always creeps into the characters, that, too, is human nature.Did I enjoy the film as a film about Alexander? To be truthful, no. I recognize that I was more disturbed by the flaws than intriqued by the story. But I enjoyed the film *as a story* about another time, place and person; in fact, I felt the Direcotr's cut was tighter and had more clarity. I enjoyed seeing how Stone perceived the story of Alexander.While I agree some of the actors were miscast (there seems to be a trend for using the same actors and actresses over and over, without regard to how well they actually fit the role), I also feel they did not have as much to work with as one might have hoped. I have now seen the movie twice, once in the theatre and once as the direcotr's cut. The latter, for me, is better as a story. I look forward to seeing other interpretations of the time, place and people.Regards,
Sikander

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[S]

Greetings Andrew,>.. I assume you're as busy as squirrels dropping pine cones from the top of evergreens... I assume you're as busy as squirrels dropping pine cones from the top of evergreens... I assume you're as busy as squirrels dropping pine cones from the top of evergreens.I had to laugh at the picture this created in my head; thank you for the welcome back. I have been and remain busy but I try to visit Pothos when I can.>Kenny and others suggest it's the directors cut I should see but too busy involved in the horse trade and training for a buyers market rule these days and horses that are difficult for people to train are going cheap, smiling all the way to the bank we are but this type of market won't last so get while the getting's good.Kenny and others suggest it's the directors cut I should see but too busy involved in the horse trade and training for a buyers market rule these days and horses that are difficult for people to train are going cheap, smiling all the way to the bank we are but this type of market won't last so get while the getting's good.Kenny and others suggest it's the directors cut I should see but too busy involved in the horse trade and training for a buyers market rule these days and horses that are difficult for people to train are going cheap, smiling all the way to the bank we are but this type of market won't last so get while the getting's good.I am glad to hear you are doing well, as I recall you were ill for a while? A well-trained horse is worth its weight in gold, I feel, so it is nice to hear you are training them. Now if only you could train some of the owners!Yes, I would probably suggest the director's cut over the theatrical release, also.>Stone.. should have given a little time with Parmenio's personal feelings and reasoning for altered routes. I feel this would have blended better with his death instead of dwelling *on* Alexander's paranoia whatever the cause.Stone.. should have given a little time with Parmenio's personal feelings and reasoning for altered routes. I feel this would have blended better with his death instead of dwelling *on* Alexander's paranoia whatever the cause.Stone.. should have given a little time with Parmenio's personal feelings and reasoning for altered routes. I feel this would have blended better with his death instead of dwelling *on* Alexander's paranoia whatever the cause.Yes. That is what I mean by developing roles for supporting characters.>When the film briefly showed Hephaestion getting cold cocked in the jaw and then doing nothing, in reality Hephaestion would have retaliated all over the person's face and body!When the film briefly showed Hephaestion getting cold cocked in the jaw and then doing nothing, in reality Hephaestion would have retaliated all over the person's face and body!When the film briefly showed Hephaestion getting cold cocked in the jaw and then doing nothing, in reality Hephaestion would have retaliated all over the person's face and body!(Laughing) Undoubtedly!>.. But over looking what we know, was the movie that bad?.. But over looking what we know, was the movie that bad?.. But over looking what we know, was the movie that bad?Obviously it could never have lived up to everyones expectations, but I felt the theatrical release was weak as a movie per se. The elements that make a good movie: storyline, dialog, development of characters enough that the audience cares, were, I felt, weak. In both releases, stereotypes jarred (though I noticed some uncomfortable dialog was removed and that was good)It was tightened somewhat, though still weak, in the Director's cut (the sex scene with Dawson and Farrell was cut in some ways, made more graphic in others, but it is a minor detail, though frequently mentioned). I suppose it could be said that the movie worked on some levels and failed on others, but that is all subjective so each person should probably see the movie and decide for themselves. You can see more how Stone's mind works in the Director's cut, as it is obvious he was trying to find the best way to appeal to more people and he certainly was more clear on how he felt about certain things, such as Olympiada,

[S]

more people and he certainly was more clear on how he felt about certain things, such as Olympiada, the deterioration of Alexander, his death, etc. I felt the movie "showed" better when viewed with someone familiar with the story, so discussions after would have a better frame of reference.I would be interested in hearing your views, as you always have an interesting persprective.Regards,
Sikander

[kenny]

Andrew HailI really hate to disagree mate. But I didnt see any Alexander strategy in Gladiator. All we had was the Roman front pinning the barbarian assault with Archersw and Infantry mass whilst Maximus smashed into them from the rear.Lord of The Rings was far from Strategically good.THe siege of the 2 towers I believe once the Orcs had blasted the hole in the wall in militaryt matters it was game set and match and I saw no reason why they continued to waste orcs to smash the gate.The Last battle was fundam,entally floored. If the orcs had dropped the sarisas down then the Cavaly charge would have been scuppered. It was also suicide that the Rohan cavalry reformed the line and charged directly at the elephants far bigger than the Elephants ALexander had to face.Sorry if I seem picky even though the battle scenes were enteraining they were strategically flawed and can live with the Gaugamella detail.All the best.Kenny

[kenny]

Character DevelopmentHail Companions, Andrew Hail. AS you have mentioned correctly with Character development. I think the more we discuss the movie the more its realised just how maybe impossible it is to nail this movie or get it right. Even if it were a collaberation of Pothos members no one would be happy there would be endless additions as we know the content is huge.The catalogue of incident is massive and some of the incidents are biblical stories in them selves.Tyre 6 months. Philips yielding of Greece years.Political intrigue.Politics of the time. Complex of Some characters who alone stand in history.Philip.Diogenese.Aristotle even Demosthenese.To make a film on tyre alone would be a comprehensive story. From its bckground. Its Strategic significance and the drama unfolding within it.The Movie about El Cid was basically focusing on the seige and aims to take Valencia and that movie was over 3 hours.I guess we none have the answers. I reflect Also on the great actors of old. Heston, Douglas, Gregory Peck Richard Burton even who brought a certain ingredient to the films. I guess we dont have that now or its very rare. Collin Farrel was just not the man for the job. I say that risking repocusions from my wife who has a Colin Farrel Calender in our kitchen.I believe the story of Alexander is the entire story of the many booked bible. Now try making that into a movie. in 3 hours absolutely impossible.Kenny

[birdlover]

I have a enjoyed reading all of your insights on the film. They are always interesting to read.




I am one of the lone voices in the wilderness who really liked the film (I have stated that several times already, here). But after following this film for quite a long time, reading reviews, comments and countless other things about the film, it still comes down to when all is said and done, it's just a movie and at the end of the day it's still a movie (obviously).





Stone tried, good or bad, right or wrong, but I certainly doubt there will ever be the definitive ATG film everyone will be happy with. There will always be problems with this or that, whether it's Stone, Luhrmann, Scorsese or Gibson who directs, Farrell, Law, Legder or DiCaprio who stars, 3 hours, 6 hours or 10 hours long, it will never be exactly what people want. There's just way too many differing opinions on the subject. And Stone's was just one interpretation, out of literally thousands.




I read one place where someone suggested taking all 5 hours of footage from the film and making the film interactive, where we could put together our own film, arranging scenes to make the story how we want to see it. Not a bad idea. I wish we could do that with all movies. But, unfortunately we can't.






So I guess your novel might be the best thing, Nic. It goes alot farther than film could ever go. Thats probably the best way to treat ATG. After my experience with this whole thing, I guess film is a medium that just won't do ATG adequate justice for most, anyway.





If anyone is interested, I found an extensive review that someone did back in February for the film (he did like it). It's quite long and detailed. The person is not a historian or an ATG expert. But, agree or not, I was amazed just at how extensisve his review was. He pretty much covered all of the bases.




Here is the link:



http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/jour ... iew=public





What I said is nothing new, but thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents. It's been a long (and sometimes bumpy) ride with this film.



Dara

[karen]

Dara, thank you for the link to this review. It's the most intelligent and detailed one, aside from Jeanne R-Z's, that I've read.Kindest,
Karen

[birdlover]

You are welcome, Karen. I agree with you. Thats what I call a thoroughly detailed review. I like how the author backed up all of his points in detail.This one is right up there with Jeanne's review. I still find hers the best so far.I have gotten so sick of the "it sucks" syndrome, with no explanantion for anything. Thats why these reviews were so great to read. They were honest, thought out and to the point.Dara