Alexander Revisited

• http://alexanderthemovie.warnerbros.com/ (Strong Web presence by the way)

Well I’m going to get this inevitable blog over and done with now so here it goes.

Oliver Stone’s Theatrical release of ‘ALEXANDER’ gave one very clear message and the message was “this is a very bad film”. In fact, if I remember, it barely broke even at the box office. And I’ve seen the theatrical and completely agree that it just isn’t good enough. Then came the Director’s cut the following year, at which point it became apparent that not even Stone was happy with how the film turned out. Again audiences greeted it with a familiar contempt. Even though it had some extra footage it still didn’t quite cut it with the public (or me). When I first saw the director’s cut I had to turn it off, I thought so little of it.
And then in 2007 Warner Brothers allowed Stone to finally put that damn sword and sandals movie to rest with the release of ‘ALEXANDER Revisited -The Final Cut’ . The reason for yet another version of the film is explained by Oliver Stone himself on the DVD:

“Part of this process of going through three cuts is wrestling with the concept of making it clearer to the public. It was always a difficult film to understand –difficult to do.”

Obviously, having brought out two fairly unsuccessful versions of a box office flop, audiences were very skeptical. But slowly but surely its qualities began to be recognized. The film is completely restructured in a way that, scenes that were at the end now show at the beginning and visa versa. This wasn’t just a case of adding an extra 40 mins footage and saying “there! It’s better now!”. In the first cuts it showed Alexander as a very innocent young man, which I believe threw audiences a bit. Now it establishes the character as everyone expects to see him (strong and in his prime) then peels back his childhood.
A previous criticism of the first cuts was that the narration of Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) seemed to lecture the audience, which resulted in boredom. Stone seems to have taken this on board and re-cut and replaced many of these narrations throughout the film.

Obviously, at 3 hours 20 mins, it is a very long and demanding film. But I don’t think one can blame Stone for that. I mean, after all, you can’t possibly tell the story of Alexander the Great in an hour and a half –the man’s a bloody legend. But Stone does lessen the fatigue of the running time by interweaving the two parallel storylines of the film.
As well as Alexander’s conquest through the known world, we see revealed throughout the film (in flashbacks) the story of his upbringing. This helps us understand, better than before, why the Character of Alexander turns out the way he does. It also breaks up the narrative so as to keep possible fatigue at bay. Plus there’s an intermission so that helps.

When you consider what an Olympian task it is to bring to the screen the world of Alexandrian civilization, you really do see what a good attempt Stone has made.

In 3 ½ hours we see Ancient Macedonia and Greece, the murder of King Phillip II, battle of Gaugamela, destruction of the Persian empire, conquest of Babylon, Alexander’s wedding in Bactria, Murder of Cleitus, battle of Hydaspes, return to Babylon and the death of Alexander the Great. All of which are not only believable but they all seem so real. Now that’s not bad for 3 ½ hours.

The imagery and use of Ancient Greek mythology is very well placed throughout the film also. We learn of the ancient heroes and gods with Alexander as a child and see how they shape and mould his life and personality. Zeus’s eagle is probably the most obvious one, but I’ll not go into that –you can watch the film and find out for yourself.
The score by Vangelis manages to perfectly match the legendary heroic themes of the film. You do get the sense, through the music, that Alexander is a larger than life god –with all the glorious themes and tracks throughout. However, Stone doesn’t just look at the character through rose tinted cameras. He shows the character as a troubled and lonely young man -And doesn’t dwell on his successes but on his failure to see success.
Although not an action movie, the battle scenes are fantastically and disturbingly real. The way they’re filmed gives the audience a strange ability to imagine how it must have been back in that age. And they’re just so damn cool!

In the end I think Alexander Revisited stands out as a very good film. It not only entertains with its epic battles and visually stunning story, but it sends messages also. It dispenses with the typical shying away from homosexual subjects. Instead a character’s homosexual relationship just becomes a love story within the movie. The themes of glory and honour are perhaps just a bit obvious. So too are the family and friend problems shown.
But In my opinion Alexander Revisited shows, as good as can be done, an entertaining portrayal of the life of such a complex man as Alexander the great.