pothos.org

Tonight I went for a second look at "Alexander", this time enhanced by some good exotic tobacco and focusing on set details. Have to say that the pickies I had from the first time were suddenly not important at all, the set details are quite amazing and it pleased me that in my novel I'm described things as accurately as they seem to have portrayed them. The movie is phenomenal when you quit letting what the critics say get in the way of looking out for specific things. There are some amazing shots in which Colin Farrell really takes on the persona of Alexander. The whole movie resonates and afterwards my friend and I (her first time) were almost speechless. Then sat in a coffee shop and went over things in detail. I later went and sat by myself at my favorite bar and let the images pervade my mind. It's really a moving experience if you allow it to be. I'm going again on Friday. Next time I'm focusing on other points. (And by the way, tonight I didn't find the script so bad after all. It's not Shakespeare or Sophacles, but aside from a few weak lines, it works. In particular I liked the opening monologue by Ptolemy.) Being a playwright I like to pay attention to these kind of things. I guess also because I'm a writer, and when I write I try to visual the 'scenes' as if they are being played out by a movie, I am looking at this with a different eye than others might.

Ruth
You may not be aware of this but a lot of writers visit and post on this site on a regular basis, so your perspective is not exactly unique. I'd like to know how you consider this good writing: before Gaugamela, we have Alexander saying that it's good to be afraid because fear makes a man fight harder. Then next day, we have him giving a pep-talk in which he tells everyone to conqueor their fear (presumably so that they will fight better).From a cinematic or story-building p.o.v. this is bad scripting.Another example of this: the use of Ptolemy's narrative to give us an idea of how Alexander inspired people, Stone has Ptolemy saying that "if you looked into Alexander's eyes, you believed that anything was possible". Then at the end of the movie, he has him saying that none of them had really believed in Alexander's dream anyway. So much for the inspiration! Again, bad story telling and a big downer to hit everyone with at the end of the movie. The triumphant end-title music jarred badly with how everyone was feeling as they left the theater. So from this writer's perspective, this movie didn't work.

Phil - I don't know that it's bad scriptwriting, or intentionally done (either case - fear or Ptolomy's end comments). For one thing, it's easy to admit fear in front of a few people and quite another to give an inspired speech for the rank and file. These are men looking death in the eye and he gives them comfort, even while he admits in private that fear can be a good thing. It shows the use of fear to suit his own needs. As for Ptolomy, didn't Stone show that the generals didn't all agree with Alexander from almost the beginning? Cleitus saying to have a good meal as they'd be dining in Hades the next day? Hephaestion telling Alexander that the generals were questioning his obsession with Darius? But still - even with their own personal doubts - they look him in the eyes and do the impossible. Ruth - we seem to be of a mind on this. I'm eagerly looking forward to your novel!Lois

Well, I haven't seen the film, but I will pick up on the comment about fear - surely Alexander isn't saying "don't be afraid" - he's saying "conquer your fear", which is a different thing. Marcus

I agree with Phil. I just didn't get any sense of charismatic power from this guy & that matters. The Big A had SOMEthing that made men believe in him & themselves. Just saying it's so in the movie doesn't make it so if the actor can't convince the general audience. This guy didn't. I KNOW he was supposed to & yeah, the men in the MOVIE acted like he had it but that was their job to act like he had it- to me- & I bet others in the audience-he didn't. The fear thing I don't buy,Lois but I see how it can SEEM like a "one for private, one for the guys", if I want it to. Maybe the problem's that Stone failed to define his scenes clearly. The more I think about it, and seeing it a 2nd time, I've decided the script & sequencing & chopped continuity just doesn't work. The whole movie's badly framed.As Alexanderphiles we see what we wanna see in the movie, but from a story line, I hafta agree that it was disjointed. I can justify any scene in any way, but I know when I'm making excuses & when I'm not, & I found myself making a LOT of excuses for this movie, the dialog, the scenes, & such. I accept em cuz I wanted a movie about Alexander. I got a movie about one mans version of him but it's not a great movie- I'll accept it tho not blindly. LOTR was a better structured story (man, even 300 Spartans, weak as it was, told a story better), with more development of individual people. C'mon, by the end of Alexander, my friends couldn't tell the generals apart as people, except for things mentioned before: one was tall, one loved ALexander, one had fuzzy hair.. that's just not good story telling about PEOPLE. The people surrounding Alexander & how they interacted helped develop him- these people couldn't develop anyone cuz THEY had no personalities.I'm not saying there wasn't emotional appeal- it was the Big A, after all & for that I'll even suffer Burton. But it wasn't a great movie from a cinematic, average audience point of view & thats a truth we have to face cuz the average audience is who's gonna "judge" it at the box office.Hair, accents, sexual hints, & all the other side stuff- none of that bugged me. What bugged me was knowing that, by the end of the movie, the audience wasn't gonna know the Man any better than when they went in- in fact, I get a bad feeling the movie will trivialize him to the average audience I don't hafta be a writer to know a good story when I hear or see one- I don't hafta be a director to know when a movie doesn't wor

I guess Oliver Stone and I are on the same wave-length??? Of course there was lots left out and apparantly several hours of it are on the cutting room floor. One 'complaint' I heard was the brutatlity of the battle scenes so if he'd included ALL the battles, or more of them, it would have been 3 hours of blood and guts. Instead, as Stone said in a recent interview, he chose to focus on Alexander's relationships (with mother, father, Companions and wife). Sure there was lots left out, and sure there were weaknesses in the script writing, but in all he did a pretty good job with a massive piece of history.

I guess Oliver Stone and I are on the same wave-length??? Of course there was lots left out and apparantly several hours of it are on the cutting room floor. One 'complaint' I heard was the brutatlity of the battle scenes so if he'd included ALL the battles, or more of them, it would have been 3 hours of blood and guts. Instead, as Stone said in a recent interview, he chose to focus on Alexander's relationships (with mother, father, Companions and wife). Sure there was lots left out, and sure there were weaknesses in the script writing, but in all he did a pretty good job with a massive piece of history.

NaxThanks, you got my point."What bugged me was knowing that, by the end of the movie, the audience wasn't gonna know the Man any better than when they went in- in fact, I get a bad feeling the movie will trivialize him to the average audience"This worries me too and has ever since I saw the trailers.Lois, my examples were just that, examples. But I chose them to illustrate why the movie didn't build to anything from a purely technical aspect. Ruth, after all, was claiming that because she was a writer, she saw it differently than the rest of us. I was merely giving everyone a different writer's perspective.I have no problem with anyone liking the movie, just with the tone that's developing of trying to make people feel that the problem is with them, if they don't. Though the "group hugs" and exclusion of others from the little cliques that are starting to form are interesting to watch, particularly the way a newcomer to the group looks for a more established "protector" to latch on to. Everyone: "Understanding" and making excuses for the bad writing and bad editing isn't doing the real Alexander any favours. Your average movie goer just wants to be entertained and isn't going to buy apologia whoever dispenses it. The LOTR boards didn't need to justify their Ring trilogy movies to non-LOTRers. Theirs was a great story well-told in cinema terms and the audiences lapped it up.Nax's point is that we can all excuse and explain this movie to one another, but we shouldn't have to. The movie should be able to stand on its own merit.We love Alexander, we know the story behind Stone's ineptitudes. People who don't know him aren't going to understand much of it, and this movie isn't going to make many of them care to find out the truth. But in the long run, none of that will matter. Alexander will survive, come what may.Phil