What are your opinions on the Alexander film?

[boris]

First of all, greetings. I am new(ish) to the site, and have just registered. You have a brilliant site here, the best on Alexander.As for the new film, unfortunatley, its going to be about another month before it comes out here in England, but am keenly awaiting it. I had read Robin Lane Fox's 'Alexander the Great' history a few years ago and enjoyed it thoroughly (everybody here should read that book). When I then heard that they where making a film, and that Oliver Stone had taken that book as a guide, I was delighted and have awaited the film eagerly since.Yet, from what I can tell, theres been a lot of negative press. My point is, are film critics who know very little about classical history in a good position to judge it? As far as I can tell, it seems to me to be very accurate, I'd say it seems to be the most accurate film in fact based in the classical period. And of course there are likely to be some difficulties in putting in a story of so much depth and complexity in a three hour film. I get the impression that Oliver Stone has given it a pretty good stab.Another thing that doesnt help is that many of the crowds the film had drawn in are likely teens looking for another Troy, King Arthur or Gladiator like film that took a lot of creative licence in order to produce an action packed blockbuster, rather than re-telling history.So, to the people of the pothos.org community, what where your opinions of the film?

[marcus]

Hi Boris,Welcome to the site - and thank you for your compliments. It was the quality of the site that first drew me to join in, too!I am also UK based, so have not seen the film. However, it does appear to me that the negative reviews are about the clunkiness of the script, the plotting and editing, rather than whether the film is historically accurate or not. So your question is a right one to ask, but it does seem to me that no-one has, yet, criticised the historicity, costume design etc. of the film. All the bestMarcus

[me]

MarcusThere was a discussion on BBC Scotland about historical accuracy in films, mentioning Alexander, and the academic on the programme (not sure who) was casually and damningly disparaging about the costumes. Robin Lane Fox was "happy" with them - I don't know if that means they are accurate, or just that it wasn't Star Trek spandex...

[marcus]

Fair enough - but does that count as a 'review'? :-)MarcusPS: By the way, The Times finally mentioned that Eastenders actor ... in a very, very small article, which just mentioned "personal issues".

[boris]

When doing a film of this sort, I think itGÇÖs almost inevitable that the scripting will have flaws due to the scope of what itGÇÖs trying to cover. ItGÇÖs a shame that the film couldnGÇÖt have been made into a high budget, 10 episode Band of Brothers style series. It would definitely have made it easier to go about things. Maybe there is a directorGÇÖs cut in the pipelines that could give the film a more complete feel.After all, trying to make a three-hour film that covers the complex world that Alexander lived in, his great deeds and that also sheds psychological insight into the man was a hugely ambitious attempt by Oliver Stone. Perhaps too ambitious, but over time, I think it will prove to be a commendable effort, despite the problems itGÇÖs having now.Still, thats pretty much all I can say on the matter, not having actually seen the film! But I await it eagerly. (Any reason why its taken longer to come out in the EEC? Anything to do with that Greek legal fiasco?)

[marcus]

Hi Boris,I agree - and I can't really comment on the script until I've seen it, myself.I've no idea why it has been delayed here. It was originally meant to come out in early November, then it was put back worldwide ... then all of a sudden it was January.But it's opened in Sweden, certainly, so it can't be a delayed release Europe-wide.All the bestMarcus

[daveh]

Well, I'm a newcomer to the board... so hello to everyone. I guess that I'll give me novice opinion on the film. First off, the film has done to have done something right because it touched off an interest in myself to go out and begin to learn something about Alexander. As a result, I read Robin Lane Fox's biography and moved on to Peter Green's before I went to the movie. So in that respect, even if you dislike the movie, it has had some sort of positive effect in that it has gotten some (however few) people to look into the subject.With that said, I enjoyed the movie. It wasn't as good as I had originally expected it would be when I fist saw the previews, but it wasn't as bad as critics made it out to be either. Unfortunately, the critics who criticized the dialogue were correct -- it occasinonally dragged on longer than it should and in some instances felt sort of "over the top." But, on the whole, it was enjoyable -- the cinemantography was very good and I thought that Gaugamela and the battle in India were very cool.The final thing I'll add is that had I not read Fox and some of Green beforehand, I honestly think that the movie would have been somewhat difficult to follow. I went with a friend who had no knowledge of ATG beforehand and he was essentially confused throughout much of the movie.Whew... a long one for my first post. Anyway, glad to be a part of the board now.

[Pavlos_Melas]

Here's a Yahoo URL with some interesting critique from a historical perspective. Interesting reading:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Iranscope ... ssage/4639

[ruthaki]

That's a very interesting and useful article. Thanks. I'm going to see the movie for the 3rd time tonight. My reasons for enjoying it so much are different, I suppose, from others. I find it inspiring to watch, to see characters who had lived with me for many years, being portrayed (rightly or wrongly) on the screen. Second time round I concentrated on settings and details of setting. Found it fascinating! Tonight I will focus on other aspects. The main complaints I've heard from the general public were from those who didn't understand the story of Alexander at all and found it confusing. Others wanted more of Alexander the strategist.
The two friends I've seen it with so far really enjoyed it (with me filling in some details that were missing in the film) I'm going with two other friends tonight so it will be interesting to get their take on it. For me? The images have stayed with me so that it has taken on an almost 'reality' -- wrong or right, I enjoyed it and second time round I really like Farrell's portrayal and especially Angelina Jolie's. Sure there are errors and lots left out. We could do without the line "Alexander was conquored by Hephaestion's thighs" for instance. Over-the-top!
And there are confusions in the plot if you don't know the details. But, I'm finding it quite inspiring. It's just a movie, after all! ruthaki

[ruthaki]

AW! didn't get to see it for a third time tonight after all. Got the times wrong. Saw "Finding Neverland" instead. I must say it's a much better script and Johnny Depp, as usual, is superb as JM Barrie writing one of my favorite stories, Peter Pan. I'll catch up with Alexander again later.

[julia]

Living in Istanbul, I have just seen the film, and surprised to be able to report that it is better than the press would have you believe. I think there's a little bit-or a lot-of Alexander in Oliver Stone; trying to conquer territories beyond normal mortals' wildest dreams. There are parts of the script that ring funny, and the accents are atrocious, bordering on Irish brogues for some inexplicable reasons. But if you're able to look beyond these technicalities, and watch the film for the broader story, you will enjoy it, or at least be provoked to think by it. The irony that this film was made during the American incursion into Iraq was not lost on me-I don't know if most people will think about that. And I think that in this day and age, when East and West are clashing so horribly in the Middle East, one of the most significant things you can take away from Alexander is the fact that this man respected the cultures and countries into which he lead his armies. Or so Oliver Stone would have us believe. For me, the homosexuality thing was literallyone of the least important and most sort of, natural, parts of the film. Not even worth really commenting on, and those who do are choosing somehow not to see the main point of the movie.

[jfk2369]

You make some great points about the Alexander film. It's refreshing to finally read someone that is down to earth when writing about comments about the film. I mean your absouletly right in saying most film critics may not be in too great of a position to judge whether a film like this is historically accurate. And yea, about what you said the film does look to be accurate and true to the times they are trying to portray. I mean there are alot of beautiful sets that are very striking and dramatic when you see them. So let that one of the many good things you look forward to about the film!