Alexander (2004)

Rakesh's movie talk

Alexander (2004)

Directed by Oliver Stone

Written by Oliver Stone, Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis

Starring Collin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins

It has been some times since I wrote any review. I am still lazy.

But after reading so much of malignant reviews on Alexander, I felt that I should give my five cents worth.

I hope that this review is not a justification measure towards something I disagree. I just want to share with the readers (which probably consists of me, myself and my ego) the joy I got from the movie.

In Nixon, Oliver Stone began the movie with a homage to Citizen Kane (1941), one of the greatest movie of all time - where the camera swoops down through the fence into the giant mansion called the White house. Here, its the 'Rosebud' scene, where the dead man drops a ring. Of course, the ring is not the red-herring 'Rosebud' that the plot chases. Its about the bearer of the ring. The ring is of no significance in this movie, nothing like THE ring in THAT trilogy. No. Okay, I will drop the ‘ring’ analogy, before the LOTR fans drop by in my office.

Alexander is not your average sword and sandal epic. But it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have the ingredient of the genre. There are two great battle scenes, so ferocious that you wonder if people really got hurt there, including the technicians. The first battle speaks greatly of the genius of Alexander as a strategist. We are given a birdseye view, literally, of the whole battle and in the end, we are very clear as to how Alexander and his men won it. The choreography of the battle is brilliantly executed.

The second battle, more gruesome, gives us a clear glimpse as to the cause of his defeat. It takes a long time to arrive to this scene, but it is worth it. We now really know why Alexander and his men feared the mysterious east and the ‘giant elephants’

Which brings us to what happens in between. What happens? A lot, if you are not asleep. If intrigued, the movie moves fast. If not, you will be left looking at the watch. I was intrigued. What made Alexander Alexander? Stone goes deep into the psyche of this man. Much revelations is done through usual exposition, symbolism and also by background narration. There is nothing much for Collin Farrell to do, so he does less. Farrell is an adequate actor, not the type who can bring extra baggage. Blimey, I can't imagine how it would have been if a younger version of great character actors like Christopher Walken or Robert Duvall have done given this role. They have what Farrell lacks. Not that I am complaining.

Other actors have great fun with their roles, namely Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie, both playing Alexander's parents. It should be noted that more often than not, the film examines deeply the protagonist’s love-hate relationship with his parents, his generals, his people and his conquests, the elements that he feels completes his life. Yes, there are also some frank depictions of his bisexuality, at the same time, hints the dubious relationship with his mother. It can be disturbing, I warn you.

I was a bit disappointed with the score (Vangelis, who did Chariots of Fire), but the other departments more than makes up for it, especially the cinematography. Brilliant. You know well that Stone always has best collaborations in that department, as well as the editing.

The production design will have to win an award. If not, I will eat the tickets. It is comparable, and to a certain extent, better than Gladiator. Sigh, if only Russell Crowe has done the lead. Another Oscar?

Point of view is important in this movie. What are you looking for and what has the filmaker given you. If it clashes, you will be disappointed. I did not. I have watched most of Stone's movies, and read many, many interviews. Somehow, he gave exactly the movie I knew will be out from him. He is master in tragedies. This movie is more of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, than D. B. Mille's Ben Hur. There, I gave away the ending.

If you go to MRQE, the reviews range from bad to mediocre. Here is one guy (whom I don't always agree) who symphatises with Stone:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18886

This may not be Stone’s best film, but it will certainly remembered, or glorified in the future.

A column in a local newspaper bugged me and I wrote the columnist a reply. Maybe you would like to see it:

I read your recent column, as usual, with great delight (Books in the Dock, The Malay Mail, 5 December 2004). I agreed with you along the way,until I reached the last paragraph. Here's what you said there:

"Meanwhile if there is something I'd like banned, it is the much awaited movie Alexander - which was heartbeats away from turning into gay porno. Oliver Stone' US$160 million (about RM600 million) depiction of Alexander the Great, who conquered the new world by the age of 27, was an insult not only to a great hero but also to history.

Now, brace yourself. It might be a long read, so please do so when you are free (if you are free anyway). Print this out, and read 'em with tea and leftover Deepavali cookies (I still have some).

Love for movies is right down to my alley. I watched Alexander recently and enjoyed it immensely, as I did most of Stone's movies. He took JFK and ripped open the many secret layers and exposed us the fallacy of the history as told to us. He did it again in Nixon. He waited 15 years to see his beloved project, Alexander, to go on screen.

But remember, history has been rewritten. Some of the content of history books I see in school nowadays are very different than the ones I had in my time.

Now, you mentioned that the film was "heartbeats away from turning into gay porno". Have you watched the movie? Or are you basing it on the complaints from many emotional folks? The movie frankly depicted the sexual preferences of the men of that time, the way it was. Being gay or bi-sexual was not even an issue at that time. Alexander was bi-sexual, and he was great. That is the truth. The movie did not even have a gay sex scene. Just one kiss, that's about it.

There are many greats in the history, but there are also many ugly truths behind it. We watch in awe the magnificence of the Pyramids. But little does we remind ourselves that the structures were build around the time when child labour was considered normal. Does the audience know what an ugly sexist Shah Jahan was, and the actual history behind the building of one of the most beautiful building in the world? All those unnecessary deaths? How about ancient Indians, who were basically paedophiles when they married children? Great philosophers like Socrates and Plato had little boys in their backyards. Yet, homosexuality and paedophilia was not an issue at that time. If Stone were to make movies about all these
personalities, and time, he will not shy away from the fact of these sexual practise.

Alexander is especially important to students in our country. It teaches the value of a leadership. At the same time, it gives us the making of such heroes. Who was Alexander? What role his parents (with story relationship which is not distant from our time) played in shaping the leader in him? How was his relationship with his friends, his generals, and his people? There were many scenes where Alexander talked about globalisation, about racism. Did anyone talked about this? No, they were all disturbed by the hints of homosexuality (yes, most scenes were subtle, no open gay activities).

There is two important reason why homosexuality is present in the movie. One, because, as I mentioned earlier, it was a norm. Nobody questioned it at that time. Secondly, it was the reason behind Alexander's lover's death (or murder). It is essential in the movie, script and character development-wise.

Alexander's self-appointed ruler of the world, is no different from Bush's self appointed police chief. American has once encountered Vietnam where they lost. Now, they are going against what is known to them, as terrorism, and they are going to meet their second Vietnam. Stone knows this, and he crafted the parallel values in Alexander. Of course, very few, especially Americans, noticed this.

I would have not been bothered if you mentioned that you'd like to see Alexander banned because it is a bad movie. 90 percent of the critics hated it. I belong to the other 10 percent. You can read my reviews in my site http://rakeshkumar7.tripod.com.

Okay, I shall calm down now. I hope I was not forcing down opinions on you. I was worried that Malaysia might ban this movie, and thank god they did not. I managed to get this spectacle on big screen. There were many films in the past, useful films like Schindler's List which were unfairly banned. We should rejoice at our new
open-mindedness of the government. Alexander and The Passion of Christ, are examples of our governments leniency.

Thank you for bearing with me. I hope you are not cross with me. If so, I do apologise. I got no business in telling you what's what. But I guess thousands are reading your column, and they may get a wrong idea as to what the movie is actually about. I loved the movie, and I want to share the joy with others.

Also, I will be putting this mail up in my site, so that regular visitors (don't worry, its very, very few) can read it.

Again, sorry if I had offended you. Like the last time I responded to your
column, here's my Clint Eastwood quote again, "Opinions are like a**holes, everybody got one".


				*Rakesh's movie talk* *Alexander (2004)*



	Home \| Movie Reviews \| Movie talk \| Film Personalities \| Misc Articles \| Contact Me \| Tamil Time


		Directed by Oliver Stone Written by Oliver Stone, Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis Starring Collin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins



		It has been some times since I wrote any review. I am still lazy. But after reading so much of malignant reviews on Alexander, I felt that I should give my five cents worth. I hope that this review is not a justification measure towards something I disagree. I just want to share with the readers (which probably consists of me, myself and my ego) the joy I got from the movie. In Nixon, Oliver Stone began the movie with a homage to *Citizen Kane (1941), one of the greatest movie of all time - where the camera swoops down through the fence into the giant mansion called the White house. Here, its the 'Rosebud' scene, where the dead man drops a ring. Of course, the ring is not the red-herring 'Rosebud' that the plot chases. Its about the bearer of the ring. The ring is of no significance in this movie, nothing like THE ring in THAT trilogy. No. Okay, I will drop the ‘ring’ analogy, before the LOTR fans drop by in my office. Alexander* is not your average sword and sandal epic. But it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have the ingredient of the genre. There are two great battle scenes, so ferocious that you wonder if people really got hurt there, including the technicians. The first battle speaks greatly of the genius of Alexander as a strategist. We are given a birdseye view, literally, of the whole battle and in the end, we are very clear as to how Alexander and his men won it. The choreography of the battle is brilliantly executed. The second battle, more gruesome, gives us a clear glimpse as to the cause of his defeat. It takes a long time to arrive to this scene, but it is worth it. We now really know why Alexander and his men feared the mysterious east and the ‘giant elephants’ Which brings us to what happens in between. What happens? A lot, if you are not asleep. If intrigued, the movie moves fast. If not, you will be left looking at the watch. I was intrigued. What made Alexander Alexander? Stone goes deep into the psyche of this man. Much revelations is done through usual exposition, symbolism and also by background narration. There is nothing much for Collin Farrell to do, so he does less. Farrell is an adequate actor, not the type who can bring extra baggage. Blimey, I can't imagine how it would have been if a younger version of great character actors like Christopher Walken or Robert Duvall have done given this role. They have what Farrell lacks. Not that I am complaining. Other actors have great fun with their roles, namely Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie, both playing Alexander's parents. It should be noted that more often than not, the film examines deeply the protagonist’s love-hate relationship with his parents, his generals, his people and his conquests, the elements that he feels completes his life. Yes, there are also some frank depictions of his bisexuality, at the same time, hints the dubious relationship with his mother. It can be disturbing, I warn you. I was a bit disappointed with the score (Vangelis, who did Chariots of Fire), but the other departments more than makes up for it, especially the cinematography. Brilliant. You know well that Stone always has best collaborations in that department, as well as the editing. The production design will have to win an award. If not, I will eat the tickets. It is comparable, and to a certain extent, better than Gladiator. Sigh, if only Russell Crowe has done the lead. Another Oscar? Point of view is important in this movie. What are you looking for and what has the filmaker given you. If it clashes, you will be disappointed. I did not. I have watched most of Stone's movies, and read many, many interviews. Somehow, he gave exactly the movie I knew will be out from him. He is master in tragedies. This movie is more of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, than D. B. Mille's Ben Hur. There, I gave away the ending. If you go to MRQE, the reviews range from bad to mediocre. Here is one guy (whom I don't always agree) who symphatises with Stone: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18886 This may not be Stone’s best film, but it will certainly remembered, or glorified in the future.



		*A column in a local newspaper bugged me and I wrote the columnist a reply. Maybe you would like to see it:* I read your recent column, as usual, with great delight (Books in the Dock, The Malay Mail, 5 December 2004). I agreed with you along the way,until I reached the last paragraph. Here's what you said there: "Meanwhile if there is something I'd like banned, it is the much awaited movie Alexander - which was heartbeats away from turning into gay porno. Oliver Stone' US$160 million (about RM600 million) depiction of Alexander the Great, who conquered the new world by the age of 27, was an insult not only to a great hero but also to history. Now, brace yourself. It might be a long read, so please do so when you are free (if you are free anyway). Print this out, and read 'em with tea and leftover Deepavali cookies (I still have some). Here we go: Love for movies is right down to my alley. I watched Alexander recently and enjoyed it immensely, as I did most of Stone's movies. He took JFK and ripped open the many secret layers and exposed us the fallacy of the history as told to us. He did it again in Nixon. He waited 15 years to see his beloved project, Alexander, to go on screen. But remember, history has been rewritten. Some of the content of history books I see in school nowadays are very different than the ones I had in my time. Now, you mentioned that the film was "heartbeats away from turning into gay porno". Have you watched the movie? Or are you basing it on the complaints from many emotional folks? The movie frankly depicted the sexual preferences of the men of that time, the way it was. Being gay or bi-sexual was not even an issue at that time. Alexander was bi-sexual, and he was great. That is the truth. The movie did not even have a gay sex scene. Just one kiss, that's about it. There are many greats in the history, but there are also many ugly truths behind it. We watch in awe the magnificence of the Pyramids. But little does we remind ourselves that the structures were build around the time when child labour was considered normal. Does the audience know what an ugly sexist Shah Jahan was, and the actual history behind the building of one of the most beautiful building in the world? All those unnecessary deaths? How about ancient Indians, who were basically paedophiles when they married children? Great philosophers like Socrates and Plato had little boys in their backyards. Yet, homosexuality and paedophilia was not an issue at that time. If Stone were to make movies about all these personalities, and time, he will not shy away from the fact of these sexual practise. Alexander is especially important to students in our country. It teaches the value of a leadership. At the same time, it gives us the making of such heroes. Who was Alexander? What role his parents (with story relationship which is not distant from our time) played in shaping the leader in him? How was his relationship with his friends, his generals, and his people? There were many scenes where Alexander talked about globalisation, about racism. Did anyone talked about this? No, they were all disturbed by the hints of homosexuality (yes, most scenes were subtle, no open gay activities). There is two important reason why homosexuality is present in the movie. One, because, as I mentioned earlier, it was a norm. Nobody questioned it at that time. Secondly, it was the reason behind Alexander's lover's death (or murder). It is essential in the movie, script and character development-wise. Alexander's self-appointed ruler of the world, is no different from Bush's self appointed police chief. American has once encountered Vietnam where they lost. Now, they are going against what is known to them, as terrorism, and they are going to meet their second Vietnam. Stone knows this, and he crafted the parallel values in Alexander. Of course, very few, especially Americans, noticed this. I would have not been bothered if you mentioned that you'd like to see Alexander banned because it is a bad movie. 90 percent of the critics hated it. I belong to the other 10 percent. You can read my reviews in my site http://rakeshkumar7.tripod.com. Okay, I shall calm down now. I hope I was not forcing down opinions on you. I was worried that Malaysia might ban this movie, and thank god they did not. I managed to get this spectacle on big screen. There were many films in the past, useful films like Schindler's List which were unfairly banned. We should rejoice at our new open-mindedness of the government. Alexander and The Passion of Christ, are examples of our governments leniency. Thank you for bearing with me. I hope you are not cross with me. If so, I do apologise. I got no business in telling you what's what. But I guess thousands are reading your column, and they may get a wrong idea as to what the movie is actually about. I loved the movie, and I want to share the joy with others. Also, I will be putting this mail up in my site, so that regular visitors (don't worry, its very, very few) can read it. Again, sorry if I had offended you. Like the last time I responded to your column, here's my Clint Eastwood quote again, "Opinions are like a**holes, everybody got one". Thanks. Rakesh Kumar