About the movie...reply to S.

[Ariadne]

I've writen this under the last post, which has desapeared from the main page, because I thought it would make it appear again. But it didn't, so I post it again : Hello Sikander ! In fact, I like cinema almost as I like A., and it seems to me that artistically, the movie is very bad ! Here in France I've only read negative reviews by cinema journalists (some of them very funny). Historians are a little more "kind". Historically, events, characters and details are almost all right. But the vision of A. is wrong : on seing the movie we don't understand why and how he became such a great conqueror, and why he's still so famous. Maybe I'm disapointed because I dreamt about a movie on this subject, and that's not the movie I dreamt.But on another point of vue, I thank Oliver Stone not to have realised the perfect movie, cause when an historical movie is very good (I'm just thinking about Lawrence now, but there may are some other examples), the film takes place of the history, and also of the myths around history. I don't know if you understand what I mean ? After have seen Stone's movie, I keep my dreams like they were, mountains, rivers, battles and palaces haven't changed !I know that's a stange feeling. I know I'm to dreamy...and can only make long posts...Bye Bye ! Ariadne

[S]

Greetings Ariadne,I had no intention to post my personal feelings about the movie, since I realize I would be in a minority here, but since we are talking cinema in general, I will make a few comments. These are simply my opinion and I realize that most here will not agree.First, let me state upfront that the accents, hair, and "sexual" hints did not bother me in the least. When telling a story, one uses props, costumes, etc. But I have to agree that, as a story about a specific peson and the people surrounding/influencing him, the movie was weak compared to similar movies with similar cast numbers and a similar blend of historical fact and fiction. I felt the dialogue, the overall script was uninspiring. Some of the scenes were poorly framed/filmed, so as to become somewhat comedic where no comedy was intended. The development of other screen roles *was* weak. Jared Leto was not given enough film time to establish any *reason* for Alexander's need/love of him, yet Stone indicated he felt this person was important to Alexander. Yet outside of Alexander *saying* so, the script kept Leto as a sideline character. This was a problem with other pivotal characters, also. It was difficult to distinguish one from another in terms of how they related to Alexander; Stone "solved" this by having Alexander name them in various scenes, else they would be difficult to identify. Contrast that to "Lawrence", the first "Lord of the Ring" movie, "Julius Ceasar", the first episode of "I, Claudius" and other such "epics" in which the audience gets a "feel" for the mind of the main character, pivotal characters and what their own motives are. Each person is carefully "drawn" to establish their personality and potential behaviour; I felt the "Alexander" movie failed in this regard. The critics seem to have grasped this, also. The ethnocentric stereotypes and comments bothered myself and others, as did other portrayals of people in the movie. Stone seems to have forgotten this movie was going to play to a varied audience; either that or he had poor advice. And while I appreciated the contrast shown between the Greeks and the "barbarians", in so far as Babylon went, this was overshadowed by the overall script.

There was some nice cinematography and the symbolism was apparent. I understood the need to condense scenes but felt too much was given up in too many wrong places to "work" for what Stone *seemed* to be trying to do. Stone wanted to give a portra

[S]

cont...

There was some nice cinematography and the symbolism was apparent. I understood the need to condense scenes but felt too much was given up in too many wrong places to "work" for what Stone *seemed* to be trying to do. Stone wanted to give a portrayal of a character he had much admiration for, yet in telling the story as he did, he seems to have failed to give others the necessary information as to *why* this person drew such admiration.. a major flaw in a movie designed to tell a person's story.So yes, I agree- as cinema, this movie was weak. Regards,
Sikander

[Kit]

Hi Sikander,I agree with your comments. Quite early into the film, which despite reading the negative reviews I approached with an open mind, I realised that three hours was never going to be long enough to adequately showcase the story of Alexander the Great. Whole swathes of what I consider to be key events and episodes were left out, sometimes unmentioned! I applaud Mr Stone for attempting the impossible and I try not to judge him too harshly for failing.Probably a mini-series would have been a better vehicle to develop the key characters, assuming big budget battle scenes were not going to be utilised. Regrettably that now seems unlikely. Back to imagining then....Kit.

[S]

Greetings Kit,I agree that a mini-series might have been better, if only it meant Mr. Stone would be able to take more time to consider his to character development, dialogue and framing from a cinematic view.Alexander's story is both a story of the internal man and a story about the sort of men and women surrounding him, the type of culture he was raised in and the world view of the time. I felt Stone had difficulty transmitting this "world" to his audience for various external and possibly internal reasons.In the end, a movie is a story, and a good story draws the reader/viewer in, makes the people and place "real" for the reader or viewer, gives them characters to identify with, admire, relate to, hate or love; enables the reader to comprehend or understand the motive, behaviour or action of the
people in the story or *deliberately* sets out to confuse the reader/viewer (which I do not see as Stone's intent); a good story can also explore one element or event in depth from vairous perspectives, with the idea of giving the viewer a window into another world or perspective.A poor story leaves the reader/viewer feeling confused, unable to identify with any person, emotion or action; a bad story leaves gaps causing the characters to appear to operate without motive, or purpose (like in "Troy", where leaving out the abuse of Patroclus' body made Achilles appear to react so strongly to the death with an irrational anger); a bad story leaves the reader feeling "Well, what was *that* all about?" or worse, wondering what is for dinner, or whether the parking meter is running out, or looking around at the audience wondering what they are thinking, or thinking about anything *but* the events, characters or images in the movie.For some, "Alexander" achieved "good story" status, for others, it did not. I am happy for those the movie worked for, and for myself and a few others, wish Stone had taken more time to edit and review carefully his own work. I felt there was much more to the movie than was presented on screen. I also felt the actors deserved a *great* deal of credit for the work many of them put into the movie and was sorry to see the vehicle of their work be so weak. Regards,
Sikander

[kenny]

Sikander NickThis may sound silly as ive said good things about the movie but at the same time I agree totally with what you both state. I think biased maybe comes to my mind as Ill credit most things about Alexander and will can credit the movie as it wasnt a bad movie. As I said Stone tried with what he had.As you both say the Story of Alexander is basically a mine field and how would any of us have done better? We would all have a different version.Im a chef and chefs cook dishes well known many chefs would make a curry wed probably like most of them but they would be different. And a very bad one would be blatantly obvious.I think I will boldly say that the battle scenes were amongst the best out there.Maybe Stone was too busy with the facts and trying to put them in a bit scew wiff without putting a lot of thought into character building. I really dont know the answer.Kenny

[Peter]

Stone did the best he could with the three hours; he did not have 15 hours like I Claudius.
More's the pity as stated!

[S]

Greetings,I can appreciate that you both enjoyed the film and that it worked for you. That said, I still feel that Stone could have done much better with the three hours than he did; for whatever reasons, he did not succeed in communicating to a number of people what his story was or who his characters were as people. From my perspective, there were things that added nothing to the story thathe could have left out, the editing could have been better, characters could have been better drawn and more clarity in the story could have been created. Some of this could have been done by omitting material and enhancing other scenes.Three hours is a long time, considering that others have made better movies with less time. I believe that a better story could have been told in that time to get Alexander's personality across (which seemed to be Stone's intent); fortunately, this does not have to detract from your own enjoyment of the movie (smiling). Regards,
Sikander

[birdlover]

Hi Everyone,
As much as I liked the film, I think that editing was a problem. It's original running time was 4 hours (as you all know). Stone showed it to WB executives, who told him to get it under three hours, so he went back and cut and had to make some tough decisions where to cut (even cutting out a few characters, in the process. Thats why the film was a bit delayed, because Stone was still editing). There were stills I saw that never made it into the film (like Alexander sitting on Darius' throne). There was one or two lines in the trailer that were not in the film, either.
I believe there was quite a bit left on the cutting room floor. I think that one hour would probably make some things a bit clearer (I still hope we might get to see it in some form). Stone edited for months and didn't finish editing until right around the end of October (I think the 29th), a week before the first preview screenings (we had a few contacts that worked on the film over at the Dreamworks forum. One was an editor on the film).
It am sure it was a tough process for him to decide what to put in and what to leave out. I agree that the editing was choppy in parts. It seemed like a piece here and a piece there was taken out of various scenes. I guess the problem is after you take small pieces out here and there, how do you put it back together to make it look seamless. I think that is the problem Stone ran into.
I give him credit for his efforts. Yes, maybe he could have done more with the three hours, I agree. He put what he thought were the most important events of Alexander life, without trying to undercut them, too much. But what he did take out could have made the major parts more coherant.
I guess you can't win. A mini-series would be the best bet.
Dara

[jan]

Sikander, greetings! You have given the best review so far! Congratulations! I admire your candor, and your insightful reasoning.

[Pete]

Maybe the DVD will help alleviate your criticism and add flesh to the bones. But please dont tell me this was inferior to Troy.