cast :
crew :
release date :
Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' (2004) is maligned as a cinematic catastrophe, and few critics have kind words for it. I doubt it has many admirers of the cinema-going kind either. 'Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut' (2007) (we are promised) is the third attempt at releasing the movie.
Stone’s most audacious film to date seems to have refused to let go of him, as the past three years have seen further tinkering with the collected footage. The first cut of the film had a dreadful pace and appeared rushed. 'Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut' goes a long way to iron out the initial problems and adds textured layers, a completely different narrative structure and seems more completely in line with Oliver Stone's original intentions. Stone says in the introduction:
"Over the last two years I have been able to sort out some of the unanswered questions about this highly complicated and passionate monarch -- questions I failed to answer dramatically enough. This film represents my complete and last version, as it will contain all the essential footage we shot".
The film's costly $150 million budget seems an insane amount of money to give to a filmmaker as un-Box Office as Oliver Stone. He may be a prestigious, awarding-winning, and thought-provoking filmmaker but one thing Oliver Stone is not is a sure-fire Hollywood hit machine. However, few directors could be up to the task of creating an intelligent, logistically complex epic that harks back to the days of Abel Gance, Fritz Lang and C.B. deMille.
Alexander the Great and his life story is a wonderful subject for a modern-day epic. The Macedonian king’s exploits have passed over time from history to myth. The film lavishes in all manner of cinematic excess: a three hour plus running time, exotic locales, rich production design, lush panoramic cinematography, visceral and viscera-displaying battle scenes centred on an interestingly complex central character.
If the film's aesthetic apes the bygone days of the religious epics of Hollywood and Abel Gance's 'Napoleon’ (1927), Stone's movie is a thoroughly post-modernist take on the Macedonian leader's life.
A major factor in Alexander’s life, and toned down for the film, are the bisexual aspects. The film does not exactly shy away from the theme; however, Oliver Stone is hardly the most subtle and sensitive of filmmakers. Firmly rooted in exploring/exploiting Rosario Dawson ‘s body, the ‘gay’ scenes are very coy indeed. A major problem for the script and indeed the advertising of the film was how to successfully tell the story of a military leader who conquered the known world and took male lovers.
Another recent Greek epic 'Troy' (2004) virtually ignored the homosexual relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. It seems almost inconceivable to a vast majority of film audiences that the heroes of Greek mythology or infamous historical figures who conquered and destroyed empires could be bisexual. Oliver Stone’s ‘Alexander Revisited’ goes some way to explain that Alexander’s relationship with Hephiastion (his long-life friend and lover) was the most enduring and stable of his short life.
There are problem in terms of cinematic representation too. 'Alexander Revisited’ is a historical drama marketed as a violent battle filled epic along the lines of the more financially successful 'Troy'.
A rather bizarre step towards notoriety for the film lies in its casting. The film's characters are played by Colin Farrell as Alexander the Great, Val Kilmer as Philip of Macedon, Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy, Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Casander, Angelina Jolie as Olympia, Christopher Plummer as Aristotle, Jared Leto as Hephaistion and Rosario Dawson playing a princess.
To call the casting decisions 'eccentric' is a large understatement. Whether the performances deliver, or fail is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, but nobody can doubt Colin Farrell's commitment to the role, no matter how unintentionally comical it is on occasion.
Casting an Irishman in the role seems to have set off the consensus that most of the American cast must follow suit with Irish lilts - Val Kilmer and Jared Leto in particular. Angelina Jolie attempts a very broad Slavic tone in her speech and the closest any actor gets to the typical Royal Shakespeare Company ‘voice’ is Anthony Hopkins in his small role as the narrator and 'older' Ptolemy whose reminiscences lead the viewer into the world of Alexander the Great.
Every time a character speaks in a cod Irish accent (other than Farrell and Rhys Meyers, of course) there is a slight air of amusement to the proceedings as it is so damn unusual. However much the RSC-style actors have dominated epic movies in the past, the use of their voices is no more ridiculous than having ancient Macedonians speaking with Irish accents. ‘Alexander Revisited’ due to the unusual array of accents and attempts at accents, is lumbered with a rather unfortunate comic weight.
There does seem to be an inherent problem with the script’s dialogue too. ‘Alexander Revisited’ is a film full of grandiose verbosity that is completely unmemorable, yet often delivered with gusto. There is not a single quotable line of dialogue in the entire film - surely an indicator of classic movie status.
Whereas Mel Gibson’s battle cry of ‘Freeeeeedom!’ in 'Braveheart' (1995), for example, became instant cinema history, there is nothing remotely approaching that emotional, pivotal scene. It is quite a shame as Oliver Stone’s movies in the past have been littered with memorable scenes and dialogue, yet in ‘Alexander Revisited’ there is nothing approaching the level of his other screenplays.
The struggle for Oliver Stone, and it could be described as a dialectical struggle, was to produce an epic movie, to push the cinematic boundaries, to yield a story and vision with which he became passionate about, indeed, obsessed by versus the demands of producers and the modern audience that want to be thrilled, captivated and engrossed.
Oliver Stone’s attempt to craft a ‘complete’ and perhaps definitive movie version of the life of Alexander the Great was helped by British historian Robin Lane Fox. However, one needs to look closely at the demands of cinema as an art, practice and discipline compared to the demands of historical perspectives. Oliver Stone's 1992 'JFK' similarly revised history to suit its particular theories.
There have been many viewpoints and opinions given on the reputation of Alexander the Great, his life and achievements. Much that is known of Alexander's life comes from books copied from original accounts now lost, the cult of Alexander the Great gained momentum in the Middle Ages, and Stone certainly casts the Macedonian king's deeds in a romantic light with Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography bathing whole scenes rich textures that are highly reminiscent of pre-Raphaelite paintings.
Mixed in with the romantic vision are displays of tactical military genius and scenes showing Alexander's tolerance of other cultures. Alexander is cast as a part dreamer and part adventurer - for a tyrant, he is an astute and tolerant. Oliver Stone's romantic historical revisionism offers no room for questions of bloody tyranny, the multiple genocides committed throughout Asia and most strikingly glaring - there is no acknowledgement, discussion, or opinion of Western Imperialism. It seems Stone wishes to ignore modern day political warmongering and empire building as it would clash with his romanticised creation.
Stone sets Alexander the Great as a troubled man a Hamlet-like figure, a military genius, and willing to push himself and the rest of the world into a new age of discovery.
The film's highlights are easily the Battle of Gaugamela on the dusty plains of Persia and the jungle battle in India. These scenes are simply staggering in their logistical complexity, and Stone excels himself by offering the viewer some of the most gruesome footage of hand to hand combat ever committed to celluloid. Rodrigo Prieto’s sun drenched, orange-hued photography and handheld close ups places the audience deep amongst the chaos. Oliver Stone and his editors expertly cut the shots - splitting the battles into ‘zones’ and employ cross-cutting between various blocks of action to demonstrate the clever tactics used by Alexander and his generals to confuse the Persian army.
It is in these scenes that Oliver Stone’s skill as a filmmaker truly astounds. The later jungle battle in India, although shorter in length than Guagamela, is even more chaotic and bloody thirsty. The Indian battle features a most heart-stopping, jaw dropping tableau vivant - arguably the single best shot in any Oliver Stone movie.
Alexander and his trusted horse Becephalus attack a battle prepared elephant in a slowed down long shot that builds to a staggering climax. The elephant and the horse rise on their hind legs in confrontation - Alexander’s sword is raised high above his head. It is a shot that encapsulates all the madness, bravery and genius that Stone sees in his imagined version of Alexander the Great.
As Alexander is struck by a spear to the chest, he falls to the ground as Becephalus is hacked and stabbed to death by the Indian soldiers. Alexander looks up to the trees and in another audacious masterful cinematic stroke, the photography switches from deep greens and rich earthy colours to a bleached out red and pink hue. It is a dreamlike moment, as Alexander appears close to death - the world and all its possibilities slowly dissolve. Alexander is carried by his men, almost as if drifting through a reverie.
‘Alexander Revisited’ is a vastly superior cut than the original, rushed cinema release in 2004. The narrative structure is less linear and skips back and forth throughout the thirty-two years of Alexander’s life exploring his family set up in closer detail and his relationships with both his male and female lovers.
As Oliver Stone says in his filmed introduction; ‘Those of you who loved the original cut will love this even more and those that hated the film, will probably continue to hate it’. ‘Alexander Revisited’ is undoubtedly a labour of love for Stone tellingly it could have ruined his entire career, his follow up movie being the truly ludicrous and sycophantically studio-pleasing ‘World Trade Center’ (2006).
Oliver Stone’s final version is still a bizarre viewing experience that is often unintentionally camp, weighted down with ponderous dialogue, eccentric performances and yet often scales the heights of cinematic artistry with its costumes, cinematography and a fantastically bombastic score from Vangelis. ‘Alexander Revisited’ is not the disaster many claims, and overtime, it might gain a cult following.
Country: USA/Germany
Budget: £100 million
Length: 205mins
Pub/2007
More like this:
'Burnt by the Sun', 1994, directed by Nikita Mikhalkov
'La Antena (The Aerial)', 2007, directed by Esteban Sapir