-
antoniobis.
User deleted
"Alexander"
While this epic that deals with the grandeur of conquest takes place in ancient Greece (recounted for us by Anthony Hopkins as elder historian Ptolemy long after the battles) the difference between it and other classic dramas is that its source is an historian rather than a poet (Homer). One might expect, then, that the narrative is more rooted in reality and less in mythology.
And, while stories of Achilles, the Trojan War, Odysseus and other Greek heroes, gods and goddesses have been well treated in movie re-creations, little has been done with this greatest conqueror the world has ever seen, Alexander, King of Macedon. If there ever was a figure in history deserving study for what he accomplished on the field of battle, in changing governments and political geography, it would be this king-warrior at the lead.
One of the things Oliver Stone's ("JFK") film of this legend brings out of the incomplete historical picture is that, for a man to have been able to expand his empire to the extent Axexander did, he had to have two essential qualities: thoroughly inspiring leadership and uncanny skills of battle strategy. Such a record of conquest would be unthinkable without them. A dream of glory, by itself, is hardly the basis of triumph.
Another intriguing aspect of Alexander's motivation in conquering the known world besides expansion of power and influence and the acquisition of wealth, is the compulsion toward exploration. As depicted here, he wants ever to march eastward, ever looking for the end of the world or, barring that, witness for himself the source of great stories and myths about surrounding kingdoms and territories. He is a zealot in the pursuit of geographical truth who won't let his army return home after years of war until he sates his questioning nature or dies in the attempt.
With all his accomplishments, which seem superhuman and beyond anything before conceived, the minds of his myth-involved people as well as his own were open to regarding him a semi-god and this concept was fully promoted by his own mother who alleged that he is the son of no less than Zeus! Lysimahos, his second teacher, called his young student "Achilles." Queen Olympias (Angelina Jolie), increasingly estranged from her husband, King Phillip II (Val Kilmer), is unrelenting in influencing her son to take these allusions seriously and to claim his destiny by ascending to the throne.
Young Alexander, born sometime around 356 BC, sopped up wisdom first from his mother's uncle Leonidas, then the scholar, Lysimaho. In his teens he was tutored by the legendary philosopher, Aristotle (Christopher Plummer) and proved to be a good pupil, loving knowledge and the epic poetry of Homer. He became close friends with Hephaestion (Jared Leto) who remained his most trusted ally throughout their brief lives. Their homosexual scenes might be bothersome to some, erotic to others, but won't be disregarded in the press.
Alexander wins his magnificent black stallion Bucephalas by proving himself able to manage the great beast when no one else could. (Background fact, not in the movie: At 16, Philip made Alexander regent of Macedonia and shortly thereafter the young warrior accompanied his father to battle where, victorious, he had the opportunity to save his father from an angry mob.)
Phillip divorces Olympias, who is not Macedonian, and remarries, this time to a local girl. The girl's uncle then starts a campaign to belittle Alexander as a true heir since he's only half Macedonian and the son of a divorced wife. Olympia's throne sensors are ignited by this change in the political winds. She inspires Alexander to attack Attalus, which greatly offends his father.
The family breach is eventually mended but without Phillip's complete forgiveness. We get the impression that Olympias is right about Phillip's intentions to pass the crown to his new son, but before that one grows to a satisfactory age for the transfer, Phillip is murdered and Alexander succeeds him as king.
His throne turns out to be more a leather saddle than a jewel encrusted seat, since he soon assembles an army to march on the armies of Persia and King Darius of Babylon.
Having Farrell play this role is a welcome respite from the usual suspects in such martial roles, like Brad Pitt (who was up for the role of Hephaistion but turned it down on the advice of his wife, Jennifer Anniston) or Russell Crowe. Farrell's acquital of the role of action hero is all right, though his ability to convey the kind of natural leadership an Alexander demands falls a bit short of the level of mastery of men and troop command that Crowe carried off so easily last year in "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" as Capt. Jack Aubrey.
Kilmer fills Phillip's royal robes with a befitting looseness and borderline dissolution while asserting the dominion his bloodline affords him. I was glad to see that he's not depicted as a simple bully. In a matchup against Jolie, however, her presence seems to dominate.
While one might expect this Greek mother who charms snakes and has a capacity to plan venomously to be, herself, a wily rattler, a cliched villain hissing in the ear of a son who will bring her wealth and power. But she's given more dimension here by Jolie, with a more complex fascination, though with an accent that's a bit more affected than necessary. She balances her character's astute political analysis and intrigue with style and cunning. After the awe of the battles and the majesty of the landscapes, the most fascinating element of this movie is the way Jolie masters the role. I've felt her confident allure before ("The Bone Collector," " Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow") but this woman's star power shoots comets and demands attention.
In another engaging role, Rosario Dawson is as spirited as a colt in her portrayal of Roxane, the exotic queen of a far Asian territory whom Alexander takes as his first wife. Her exquisitely formed features could inspire statuary of polished obsidian.
The battles are big, grand in concept and execution. Close-in action is quite bloody as the desert becomes drenched. The overall strategy of the big battle is sometimes lost in the melee with aerial shots either not clarifying enough or positions not well conveyed and it's easy to get confused about who is gaining the upper hand until our hero breaks through the dust and slaughter to face Darius and send him running. Those who come for the action are not likely to be disappointed.
Oliver Stone will be the last person to agree that even a great story can and should be told in two hours. What we get in a 173 minute movie is a depth of detail that slows the pace and seems to pay homage more to a director's sense of importance than to keeping the audience vitally engaged in his subject. There's a certain "drowning in detail", ragged quality here, dilution through repetition, long windedness, battle fatigue.
I say, come see the impact that can be created in 115 minutes -- Come see "The Incredibles." An historical saga doesn't require epic length and the director who can do a tight rendering of the essence of Alexander will have won the day. Frankly, I'd like to see what relentlessly entertaining director (of "The Incredibles") Brad Bird can do with a live action epic like this one.
So, while "Alexander," the movie, will be good for a certain kind of audience, it's not as great as its subject, whose vision of conquest and expansion is perhaps the glory of the ancient world, the scope of which should be well appreciated by reference to the map of the remade Alexandrian version.
~~ The Filmiliar Cineaste
.