1955 Alexander the Great movie re-visited

[S]

Greetings All,I got an opportunity to watch the old Alexander the Great movie last night- as was pointed out, havoc was wreaked on the timelines, people, etc- however, I have to say a lot of effort went into costuming (though the statues were still white), and one thing that scored points- most all the actors and extras actually rode bareback. Another interesting thing to note was how many of the Alexander mythologies were thrown into the mix.. one of my major complaints against this sort of movie, I admit.I also realized that though Burton was too old, he seemed to play the young Alexander with more focus, losing his way as Alexander aged, until he seemed to become a caricature of the young Alexander. Finally, I realized when watching this movie that it felt like reading a modern novel- I began to wonder just how much this movie may have influenced some modern writers who viewed it when young and their views on Alexander on a subconscious level.I suspect that some of the mythology/pseudo"facts"/fantasy generated on the Internet regarding Alexander and the people around him actually derive from this movie as a source rather than from the extant sources, considering film today is a more powerful tool than reading-
that in itself was fascinating to think about.Has anyone else viewed this recently, and what were your impressions (on a character level, not history- unfortunately, the history side is dismal)What was the general impression of the portrayal of Philip? Of Darius? Olympiada? Demosthenes? Aristotle?Regards,
Sikander

[iskander_32]

I agreethere was a lot I enjoyed about the film, As you say Burton was too old but he was a great actor never the less his voice was amongst the best in hollywood and carried the persona of Alexander very well.There were a lot of good ferformances with great actors,the discrepencies with the story were pretty obvious but to say it was 50 years old in a time of sword and scandal i did like it.Some of the speaches and oration were rather inspiring.Macedonians, you were gathered here on the plains of Actium, to be lead to the greatest glories any army ever achieved.The conquest and distruction of the Persian Empire.Nothing has changed, But the name of the King.Alexander rousing his men.It was full of great speachesregardskenny

[centurion]

Hail and -S-,
Great movie from an entertainment point of view-less so from a historical one. Frederick March did a wonderful job as Philip II, I thought. Claire Bloom and of course, the "man with the golden voice" as Burton was known. I think though, that this movis does what all too many books do-they tend to paint Alexander in extremes-deity or villian-when what he really was, was-a man in a position of great power, with all the good and bad things that go with that.
regards, Centurion

[S]

Greetings Centurion,I agree about the historical details- dismal, as I stated. But I found some of the interpretations of people amusing. Frederic March as Philip had some interesting scenes, as did Burton, but I got the sense the movie simply did not know *what* do do with the characters, and it seemed to float between trying to be "serious" and being high "camp"!!Regards,
Sikander

[centurion]

And Hail Sikander,
I do agree with you. I always liked Frederick March and Claire Bloom, and think their acting (as I perceive acting) was always 1st class. But, yes, the movie itself did fall short in a number of areas-for example in detail of military units. One scene that I found laughable was where Alexander's prophet Aristander rode charging alongside the Companions right at the Persians-even though he clearly appeared to be unarmed and was waving his hands.
All in all, a good movie, not a first class one. I hope that the new Alexander flick will be better. I know very little about that one though.
Hail and -S- Centurion

[S]

Greetings Centurion,Ah yes, the arms (laughing). I *was* a bit put off by scene of Philip dancing on the rocks, also- that bothered me, since up until then the actor had had more dignified material to work with. I know what they were trying to portray, but it seemed OTTThe river battle scenes were also disjointed- but I appreciated the bareback riding- I did note there were some d**n fine horsemen in some of the scenes.Regards,
Sikander

[ruthaki]

As a high school senior entranced with Alexander and spending all my time researching and reading about him, I was appalled by what they did with that original movie. I thought Burton was far too old for the part (even though I admired Burton as an actor) and I was horribly disappointed by the whole thing. A few years ago I watched it again. Same reaction only this time I had a good laugh. The sets!!! oh my god!!! And what a pathetic job they did of telling the story. I must say I had a good laugh the second time I saw it. But that was then and now we have all the technology so that will add a lot when they produce this new version.
I have the old movie in my collection just because...and no doubt whenever the new ones comes out on DVD I'll buy it too. But my opinion of the old one is still the same. A huge disappointment!!

[centurion]

Ahh,
and how about the phalangites with the short sarissas?
-S-
Centurion

[centurion]

Hail Ruthaki,
Yep-the movie certainly was not the caliber of later Hollywood blockbusters. All the same, interesting perhaps.
Many Regards,
Centurion

[marcus]

Hi Sikander,On the whole I'd tend to agree with you. Frederic March was pretty good, particularly.I have always thought that one of the best performances in the film was Harry Andrews as Darius.All the bestMarcus

[beausefaless]

Yea yea yea, with all due respect,Lift your noses in the air turn your heads and snob it into the ground but deservingly so! My complaint is the name Bucephalus was never mentioned once! But Rossen did show Burton on a horse with one of those ox looking patch on the fore head which some people believe this is the source of the name ox-head which I could not agree with in a million years but how many times have I been wrong.Some of you kind folks keep missing the point here. As I've said before, during the fifties directors and producers tried to bring the stage to film which never worked (Little Abner, Oklahoma, South Pacific, and etc. West Side Story came a bit later. I recall most of the critics comparing Laurence Olivier's stage acting to film as apples and oranges but I did like him in the Marathon Man, *Is it Safe!*.As for Philip dancing on the rocks celebrating his victory, even though Alexander saved his life, he was drunk and he gave me the strangest feeling that he somehow knew the grim reaper was disguised as one of those dead bodies sizing him up.Except for (GÇÿruthakiGÇÖ) I think most of us can find some good from this film, for me the acting in general was good and some of the dialog was classic but your not going to find a good set when you're coping the stage.Best regards, Andrew

[Halil]

Hello Andrew
Okay, I'm interested - why do you think Alexander's horse was known as Bucephalus?
Re: the movie: Philip dancing on the rocks was a memorable moment - it had a strange quality, as you say, like he was dancing in the face of his own death.
Regards
Halil

[S]

Greetings All, What I liked here, though, was the director selected horses that were more suitable. Burton's horse better resembled the ones in the frieze more so than a Friesian, which is in the current production.
As to the name Bucephalus, I tend to agree that the *why* of the name differes from the common story. Andrew, good point about Philip dancing on the rocks (and a nod to Halil on this one, too). I can see what you mean about trying to bring the stage to film. And though the history was sadly missing and far too much mythology was mixed in, I *did* think some of the "essence" of the people was there... I got a feeling that the director and screenwriter did not have a grasp on *why* the people acted as they did, so they had to rely on the mythology to understand them- and in this, it "worked" - not as a history, but as a movie, though somewhat heavy-handed. Another positive- though the sets were poor, it was refreshing to see people wearing colour rather than the tiresome- and erroneous- white! I felt an attempt had been made to capture the Persian clothing, also, despite the obvious flaws. Considering how little they probably had to go on, the difference in budget levels today and then, the difference in cultural awareness (though I still feel Stone has played havoc with that one) etc., I found myself appreciating the *effort*. And 6000 extras added to the fun. Most fun of all was the promotion: "During the film's extraordinary battle scenes, more than 6000 extras wore 1800 suits of armour, 230 beards, 50 scars, 40 wigs and 36 imitation noses".. Imitation noses???Regards,
Sikander

[S]

Greetings Ruth,I agree that the disappointment was overwhelming from a historical side (but then, the few trailers and such I have seen on the recent Stone movie leave me with the same feeling for many reasons). I don't have to see it to know I am already going to be disappointed..That said, I agree Burton was too old (then again, I find Farrell poorly cast, also- no charisma), but I was interested in his portrayal of the character. What intrigued me was that he seemed to do better as the young Alexander but lost his way with the old- as though unable to portray the changes that aging and stress bring. I kept wondering if that was Burton's failure or the script- I tend to see the script as weakening more and more the further along it got.Film construction interests me- how a director "creates" *his* vision- and that is what made this movie interesting. Yes, I could laugh at some scenes, yes the script left a lot to be repaired, yes, the sets were weak- though Andrew makes a good point further down.. but despite these flaws, I found it interesting in terms of the interpersonal relationships the director saw as pertinent and how he attempted to explain those.I also thought it was interesting how the direcotr portrayed certain personalities such as Darius, Aristotle, etc. Regards,
Sikander

[birdlover]

Don't let a few very rough trailers discourage you about Stone's version of 'Alexander', Sikander. Will it be perfect? Certainly not. Will some be disappointed with it. Yes. BUT, I think a lot of judgement has been made from the little film that has been seen, here. The real "official" trailer has not even appeared yet. It probably will in September, sometime.Personally, I think Colin Farrell will surprise a lot of people with his performance. He's not a Richard Burton or an Anthony Hopkins by any stretch. But he is a good enough actor to hold his own with a complex part like this. Even Anthony Hopkins called him a good actor, in an interview I heard, recently. I have said this before, Stone is a competent film maker. If he didn't think Farrell could do the job he wouldn't have let him do it.So I will stop with my 2 cents. But, I think it will be great to watch. But, don't come to me if you want your money back after you see the film. I am only giving my opinion and thats free!Dara