Posted on 11/24/2004 4:10:44 AM PST by jalisco555
If you played a word-association game with "Alexander the Great," you'd probably come up with "conqueror," "king," "warrior," "legend," "despot," "wastrel" or "killer." Unfortunately, Oliver Stone has chosen to build his epic of the Macedonian military genius around a word highly unlikely to make the list: "crybaby."
In Stone's view, this is a highly neurotic young man whose emotions, far from being repressed or disciplined as one would expect of a great soldier of the 4th century B.C., are worn on his sleeve, except, of course, that he doesn't have sleeves, the shirt still being two millennia down the road. So he wears them on his wrist -- and it's a limp one.
As Alexander's mother, Angelina Jolie (replete with snake) is given a thankless role, while star Colin Farrell gets lost in the shuffle in another been-there, seen-that battle scene. (Photos Jaap Buitendijk -- Warner Bros. Pictures)
That's the weirdest aspect of the extremely weird, if absurdly expensive, movie. Stone gives himself much credit of "telling the truth" about Alexander's bisexuality as if it's some progressive badge of honor, but at the same time he can't get away from the cruelest, least imaginative stereotyping: His Alexander, as expressed through the weepy histrionics of Colin Farrell, is more like a desperate housewife than a soldier. He's always crying, his voice trembles, his eyes fill with tears. He's much less interesting, except as a basket case, than Richard Burton's Alexander of far less enlightened times -- 1956 -- in Robert Rossen's "Alexander the Great."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Why? He's actually been quite good in alot of things. His baby face is a detriment. But by all accounts, he gives a remarkable performance. We'll see.
Now, now...What I've read is that he gives a remarkable performance. I'm willing to make my own judgement.
JFK made money and (if you can ignore the fact that it is pure fable) is really quite good.
LD was as miscast in Titanic as Farrell is in AtG. Yuck, yuck, yuck. Couldn't they find a real man?
The only role I could buy him in is as a catamite. And still I wouldn't want to see it.
Hmm, I wouldn't call the Huns a 'small tribe'. What did the Pope call them again? The scourge of God, IIRC.
And I'm sure you know in an attempt to somewhat appease the Huns, who where attacking pretty much "Rome" at will, the Eastern Emperor 'gave' the Huns a province North of the Danube River, which is now Hungary.
And as I'm sure you also know, the Goths originally occupied that land, but they were pushed South of the Danube into "Rome", by the Huns. But they were allowed access on the condition that the Goths fight as a Roman ally against the Huns. (the Goths always got screwed by Rome IMHO). In any case the Huns occupied Hungary long before the Magyars arrived around 800 AD. (but yes the word Hungary is a 'Magyar word')
And yes assimilation occurred, but that was a common occurrence 'back then'. Wherever the Roman Empire reached (Western & Eastern), assimilation occurred. Just like the Vikings did in the 800's they eventually assimilated where they went; Russia, Normandy and Briton. The only group that I can recall that didn't assimilate as a rule in Europe was the Mongols.
Good catch.
I haven't read it yet but I certainly will. So many good books, so little time. Thank heaven for audible.com and books on CD.
They'd have a good chuckle, as would the rest of the US.
I read a biography of Hughes a long time ago--wouldn't have believed it, but the trailers show DiCaprio as the kind of man young Hughes was. Driven, with a ton of restless energy, and willing tick off the high and the mighty.
And a couple of gold front teeth and a bottle in her her hand could only help.
The best actor award will go to Jamie Foxx who is incredible as Ray Charles. Look for Geoffery Rush as Peter Sellars on HBO next month and Spacey as Bobby Darrin also. I love bio pics and can't get enough. Spacey should also do Johnny Carson and Jack Benny. He's a natural for both.
One of my all time favorites Gary Busey as Buddy Holly.
Hughes liked Baskin Robbins ice cream and preferred Banana Nut. His guys had to go down to the store regularly and get 5 gallons. BR used to post the flavors coming "next month" and those that were "leaving."
During one trip to the store, the guys noticed Banana Nut was leaving. They started to panic and were going to call the company and make some arrangements, just as Howard, unexplainable switched to another flavor.
OK one more. Hughes bought two hotel/casinos in Vegas. The mafia started to feel encroached upon so they sent two "representativs" to tell Hughes that two was enough. He told them f$#k you! Eventually bought two or three more. When you have DOD and CIA backing you can even tell the mafia where to go.
Maybe we see Alexander's conception.
I agree with your general point, but it was Alaric who sacked Rome in 410, and wasn't Romulus Augustus the last Western Emperor, deposed in 476? And technically, wasn't Augustus the first Roman Emperor?
I could never get a handle on the Alexander portrayed on screen. I could never warm up to him. There was something missing, and I believe it was because Oliver Stone doesn't believe in the dignity of his subject.
Oliver Stone's philosophy on Alexander is betrayed in a line delivered by Anthony Hopkins at the end of the movie, forty years after Alexander died. "We didn't believe in his dream, none of us." (This was Ptolemy his general, who later took over Egypt.) So obviously Oliver Stone was knocking the basic mission of Alexander (white Western imperialist).
Hopkins goes on to complain about being one step ahead of the dreamers (Alexander) who was trying to get them killed. Stone's message is obviously anti-war, there's no reason for fighting for war. Scratch fighting for empire and glory. Of course, this attitude would have been inconsistent with the thinking of those times. PC correctness gone amuck.
Nobody cheered at the end...contrast this to "Gladiator" where the audience applauded at the end. In Gladiator, the director never apologized for the violence of the times, and the viewer could identify with Maximus' plight and root for him.
I never found myself rooting for Alexander in this Oliver Stone film.
When he put on the war helmet, it made him look more manly, and the way it framed his face, he looked extremely macho. Once the helmet came off, that was it.
Yes he was very weepy thru this film. Unbe-LIEV-able! This was a violent age, but this Alexander had tears running down his cheeks...countless times. I lost count. And his feelings were always getting hurt because his generals didn't love him enough.
The dialogue was atrocious. The worst line was Alexander riding into battle trying to rally his men, shouting, "Do you want to live forever?" (Yes, we've heard that line before, in Conan the Barbarian. And since it was a signature line in that film, it was very jarring to hear it in a serious historical film.)
For writers and screenwriters, I'd encourage you to view Alexander just to see how NOT to write a screenplay. It was a MESS. If a viewer went in cold knowing nothing about Alexander, they'd be totally lost, because it jumps between time periods, puts the assassination of Alexander's father Phillip as a flashback towards the end of his life -- it's just weird.
You'd have no conception that one reason the Macedonians went to war was that the Persians had become extremely strong and were considered a threat, and the Greek communities under Persian control were considered oppressed. It wasn't just about Alexander's glory. Besides, plunder was a legitimate motive for war back then. It was how the world's economies played off each other. Gee, you'd never know that from this film.
This movie will flop bigtime.
She expresses shock, Hephaistion ducks out embarrassed, Alexander tries to talk his way out of it. She accuses him, You love him! She slashes at him with a knife and holds it to his throat--he tells her to go ahead and let him die in embarrassment -- she drops the knife and he tells her that Hephaistion is Hephaistion, that there are different ways of loving, then they make love. It's just ridiculous.
(continued) All in all, I'm still glad I saw this movie. Since I love the classical world, this film is still worth one viewing. And there are many good supporting actors involved who are a pleasure to watch. It's one of those things, we probably won't get another version of Alexander unless A&E does it. PBS had a two-hour special some twenty-five years ago, with actors reenacting certain scenes from Alexander's life (very low budget of course). It's a shame that this is all we're going to get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.