Monday, January 10, 2005
Alexander - Alexander Who??
Alexander and his war weary men tread apprehensively through the dense Indian jungle to take on the army of Porus. Suddenly, the ground beneath their feet seems to vibrate, strange noises fill the forest air. Confusion and fear of the unknown can be clearly discerned from the faces of Alexander’s men, the advancing party stops. The noises get louder and closer, all of a sudden an entire unit of war elephants breaks out from the dense foliage rushing headlong into Alexander’s army surrounding them on all sides. The elephants combined with the archers on treetops wreck havoc on the advancing Greeks. The able commanders of Alexander, who were involved in many a war from Egypt to Persia are bewildered and at a total loss as to how to handle the situation. Alexander realizing that his army is on the verge of being routed decides bravely to confront Porus himself. He breaks through the enemy lines and heads straight for the elephant on which Porus is seated. The picturization of this entire sequence of events, beginning with the attack of the elephants, to the point when Alexander confronts Porus, loses his legendary horse “Bucephalus” and is mortally wounded is absolutely stunning. Very rarely in a Hollywood ‘period movie’, does one get to see a battle in which elephants are involved, yet the manner in which this battle scene is depicted would surely brush aside previous images (if any) of the same and set a new benchmark.
Sadly, the entire sequence described above is the only positive, worthwhile aspect of the whole movie. One might argue that the splendor of Babylon and other ancient cities, the battle with Persian Emperor Darius (No, not that Radio City dude) and a few skirmishes with the tribes in Hindu-Kush Mountains are well depicted. However, these do not in any way excel the standards expected from a Hollywood period or epic film.
Good period movies in general could be classified broadly under the following two categories:
a) Ones that state the facts more or less as they happened or are known, with a minor dose of fiction or exaggeration added in to ensure that the movie doesn’t end up being a documentary. These movies project the elements of style, splendor and grandeur of the ancient civilizations with incredible and breathtaking sets, stunning crowd scenes and action sequences. Most period movies of the 50’s and 60’s, such as Cleopatra, Helen of Troy (original), Spartacus etc would belong to this category.
b) The second category would constitute the ones in which the period setting or event only forms a backdrop, while the central idea of the movie would be to bring out the nature of the characters involved. Troy is a perfect example of this. The comparison between the attitude and character of Achilles and Hector is the essence of the movie and not the narration of the entire Trojan War.
Oliver Stone’s Alexander unfortunately does not fit into either of these classifications. For most parts of the movie, the director (and consequently the audience) seems to be lost and almost as clueless as Alexander’s men in the jungles of India. Neither is there a clear depiction of the all conquering Alexander as we know from high school history nor is there is there any attempt to dwell into his character and highlight his positives, such as his Never say die spirit in the face of any challenge or negatives, notably his ambition to conquer the world which blinds him from reality.
The main star cast of the movie constitutes of - the Phone booth hero, Tomb Raider as his mom and Batman as his dad. At the end of the movie you would still walk out with the same image of the three characters who fail to impress and do not come across as Alexander, his mother Olympias and father Phillip of Macedonia respectively. For some strange reason Angelina Jolie speaks with an irritating accent throughout the movie, like a Greek or Russian perhaps trying to speak in English. Agreed, Olympias is not of Macedonian origin and hence the affected accent, to convey the same. Strangely, the same logic doesn’t seem to apply to Alexander’s wife Roxana (or Roxane) who is of Persian origin but speaks with a much more comprehensible accent. The dialogues in the movie are not ‘captivating’ let alone ‘hard hitting’. In the battle with Darius, the pre-battle speech could have highlighted the magnitude of the battle that was to be fought and brought out the leader in Alexander but sadly the dialogues fail to impress and the battle that ensues seems like ‘just another war’. The gory scenes namely, the execution of Alexander’s boyhood friend on charges of conspiracy, the killing of his close confidant after an heated exchange of words and the display of the victuals of a sacrificial cow could have been done away or handled in less ‘bloody’ manner.
The last few sequences in the movie would leave anyone with an average knowledge about Alexander completely puzzled. Surely the director and his team would have done the necessary homework, with regard to obtaining historical facts about Alexander. However, the way the events are pieced together gives an impression that Alexander was beaten by the Indian king and his death was as a result of the injuries he sustained in the battle. The flashback sequence that starts, when Alexander is in his deathbed (and the audience eagerly waiting for his and the movies end) only muddles the movie further and tests the patience of the audience.
The only aspect of Alexander’s personal life that the director decided to dwell on is the one that has generated the most controversy. It is a known fact that ancient Greek warriors had intimate relationships with male companions, so why the controversy? One wonders. The relationship between the great hero Achilles and Patroclus is neatly side stepped in Troy. Ok, so Oliver Stone decided to go ahead and boldly depict Alexander’s relationship with Hephaistion. Sadly this has ended up being the biggest undoing of the movie. If all other facets of Alexander’s life, his conquests and his character had been depicted powerfully enough, surely his preference for males would have hardly stood out or have had such an impact on the audience. Since the movie has failed in most aspects all that a moviegoer would conclude about Alexander would be - “ Alexander was some ancient Greek dude who fought with every other king and spent his non fighting time either drinking strong wine or romancing some guy”.
Surely, the image of Alexander that one has built up either studying history in school or through General knowledge is clearly not the one depicted in the movie. One really wonders if it’s the same Alexander that the movie is talking about.
Sadly, the entire sequence described above is the only positive, worthwhile aspect of the whole movie. One might argue that the splendor of Babylon and other ancient cities, the battle with Persian Emperor Darius (No, not that Radio City dude) and a few skirmishes with the tribes in Hindu-Kush Mountains are well depicted. However, these do not in any way excel the standards expected from a Hollywood period or epic film.
Good period movies in general could be classified broadly under the following two categories:
a) Ones that state the facts more or less as they happened or are known, with a minor dose of fiction or exaggeration added in to ensure that the movie doesn’t end up being a documentary. These movies project the elements of style, splendor and grandeur of the ancient civilizations with incredible and breathtaking sets, stunning crowd scenes and action sequences. Most period movies of the 50’s and 60’s, such as Cleopatra, Helen of Troy (original), Spartacus etc would belong to this category.
b) The second category would constitute the ones in which the period setting or event only forms a backdrop, while the central idea of the movie would be to bring out the nature of the characters involved. Troy is a perfect example of this. The comparison between the attitude and character of Achilles and Hector is the essence of the movie and not the narration of the entire Trojan War.
Oliver Stone’s Alexander unfortunately does not fit into either of these classifications. For most parts of the movie, the director (and consequently the audience) seems to be lost and almost as clueless as Alexander’s men in the jungles of India. Neither is there a clear depiction of the all conquering Alexander as we know from high school history nor is there is there any attempt to dwell into his character and highlight his positives, such as his Never say die spirit in the face of any challenge or negatives, notably his ambition to conquer the world which blinds him from reality.
The main star cast of the movie constitutes of - the Phone booth hero, Tomb Raider as his mom and Batman as his dad. At the end of the movie you would still walk out with the same image of the three characters who fail to impress and do not come across as Alexander, his mother Olympias and father Phillip of Macedonia respectively. For some strange reason Angelina Jolie speaks with an irritating accent throughout the movie, like a Greek or Russian perhaps trying to speak in English. Agreed, Olympias is not of Macedonian origin and hence the affected accent, to convey the same. Strangely, the same logic doesn’t seem to apply to Alexander’s wife Roxana (or Roxane) who is of Persian origin but speaks with a much more comprehensible accent. The dialogues in the movie are not ‘captivating’ let alone ‘hard hitting’. In the battle with Darius, the pre-battle speech could have highlighted the magnitude of the battle that was to be fought and brought out the leader in Alexander but sadly the dialogues fail to impress and the battle that ensues seems like ‘just another war’. The gory scenes namely, the execution of Alexander’s boyhood friend on charges of conspiracy, the killing of his close confidant after an heated exchange of words and the display of the victuals of a sacrificial cow could have been done away or handled in less ‘bloody’ manner.
The last few sequences in the movie would leave anyone with an average knowledge about Alexander completely puzzled. Surely the director and his team would have done the necessary homework, with regard to obtaining historical facts about Alexander. However, the way the events are pieced together gives an impression that Alexander was beaten by the Indian king and his death was as a result of the injuries he sustained in the battle. The flashback sequence that starts, when Alexander is in his deathbed (and the audience eagerly waiting for his and the movies end) only muddles the movie further and tests the patience of the audience.
The only aspect of Alexander’s personal life that the director decided to dwell on is the one that has generated the most controversy. It is a known fact that ancient Greek warriors had intimate relationships with male companions, so why the controversy? One wonders. The relationship between the great hero Achilles and Patroclus is neatly side stepped in Troy. Ok, so Oliver Stone decided to go ahead and boldly depict Alexander’s relationship with Hephaistion. Sadly this has ended up being the biggest undoing of the movie. If all other facets of Alexander’s life, his conquests and his character had been depicted powerfully enough, surely his preference for males would have hardly stood out or have had such an impact on the audience. Since the movie has failed in most aspects all that a moviegoer would conclude about Alexander would be - “ Alexander was some ancient Greek dude who fought with every other king and spent his non fighting time either drinking strong wine or romancing some guy”.
Surely, the image of Alexander that one has built up either studying history in school or through General knowledge is clearly not the one depicted in the movie. One really wonders if it’s the same Alexander that the movie is talking about.
# posted by Akshai @ 10:09 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
>The main star cast of the movie constitutes of -
> the Phone booth hero, Tomb Raider as his mom and Batman as his
>dad.
Hillarious!
Post a Comment
> the Phone booth hero, Tomb Raider as his mom and Batman as his
>dad.
Hillarious!
<< Home
