A different Alexander

I watched this movie on a boring Sunday afternoon, and when finished, I wasn’t sure if I would have been better off just having a nap instead. But, at the end of the day, I didn’t really regret too much watching it, although I was somewhat disappointed, as I was hoping the cast (Anthony Hopkins, Collin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, and Val Kilmer) would yield a much more interesting and captivating product.

In principle, I like historical movies, especially of ancient times, as they are often times so eye-opening and remind us of our basic human instincts and nature. Alexander of Macedonia and his many victories is an episode of the ancient times which has long been admired by the world, and rightfully so. It is an incredible story which undoubtedly sparked the imagination and has continued to inspire many through centuries, from various artists to common people to national leaders across the globe. Indeed such a story should provide a lot of space for an inspired movie maker to create a really great film; however, this obviously isn’t a great one.

The story is well known, Alexander (Collin Farrell) inherits the throne from his father (Val Kilmer) under (more than just) the watchful eye of his mother Olympia (Angelina Jolie), he wins over the rest of the Greek and other tribes and goes on a relentless campaign to subdue the Persians and all the others in his path, extending his victories far beyond his father or anyone else has ever gone before him at a very young age, only to die from a fever, half-mad. Now, this is the standard tale known to everyone who knows anything about Alexander and is mainly adhered to in this movie also.

So what is different about this movie on Alexander? Well, in my view, the main difference is that the focus here is not really on Alexanders’ genius as a war strategist, nor so much on his heroism or many victories which is what he is remembered for, but rather, in understanding and explaining how Alexander’s persona and goals changed with time - beyond the traditional quest for territories or personal glory. And this turns out to be the main flow of the entire story narrated in the movie some 40 years later by one of his commanders now old and bitter of life, Ptolomey (Anthony Hopkins). The problem is with the suggested view of Alexanders’ ambition, changed from simply exceeding his father’s victories into a failed attempt to unite Asian and Greek (European) peoples into a single, happy bunch. Now, as admirable as the idea may be, and even if one assumes some of Alexanders’ not very well understood moves such marriage with Roxanna (Rosaria Dawson) not to be due to affection but rather an attempt to build bridges between peoples, it is still a highly controversial account of events. It is a suggestion which is pretty unconvincing and difficult to sell to the viewer, even if attributed to Ptolomeys memories of Alexander.

The second main flow of the movie is the way Alexanders’ character is portrayed. His alleged homosexual orientation is given too much attention and importance. He is shown as a weak person who cries once too often for an upcoming ruler of the world. One can see in Alexander an insecure person easily influenced by others such as his mother Olympia or his one and only love - commander Hephaistion (Jared Leto). He is even portrayed as the leader who, at one point, is willing to turn his back on his soldiers and wants to lead the ex-enemy army instead, for the sake of his over-ambitious ideals. Then also, there are many scenes in which his relationship with Olympia contains elements of seduction, and so on and so on. Without wanting to ascertain if any of such characterization of Alexander is based on facts or not (and there are probably many arguments both ways), I guess the viewers were just not ready for such an Alexander, or any other hero, for that matter.

The third main flow is the incredible ignorance of basic historical facts used to add colour to the movie. Let me give you an example of what I mean by this: Olympia uses a Slavic accent in her speech, and I honestly wonder where did this bright idea come from? Is it from the word Macedonian in Alexanders’ name and naively linking it with the today Slavic speaking Macedonians? The same applies to the Slavic folk sounds frequently played in parts of the movie. Now, this is more annoying than anything else, since anyone who knows anything about the ancient times knows that the ancient Macedonians were (according to most historians at least) a Greek tribe and their language and music could have had no influence from Slavic tribes, since the Slavs migrated to the Balkans only some 9-10 centuries after both Olympia and Alexander were dead. But than also, why should only Olympia be using a Slavic accent, implying her origin was not Macedonian? Indeed, according to many, a bit more insightful and meticulous historians, Olympia was an Illyrian princess. Still, even as an Illyrian princess, there is no way Olympia could have had a Slavic accent, knowing that the Illyrians’ descendants are the today Albanians whose language has no similarities whatsoever with Slavic languages. Or is it just a silly attempt to make Angelina sound sexier? It’s a cheap trick, anyway, and an unnecessary one, too. On the positive side, the contribution of Illyrians and implicitly of many other ancient peoples who lived in the Balkans to Alexander’s victories is acknowledged in the scene where one of his wounded soldiers expresses devotion to his Illyrian King, Glauk.

Another thing I didn’t like is the fact that the story is not very well linked and doesn’t really flow well. A critical part of the story explaining how Alexanders’ father King Philip (Val Kilmer) dies and how Alexander succeeds the throne is left out for much later in the film, which I thought was simply confusing. Again, this version of events, whereby Alexander is treated by Philip as an unwanted bastard due to his hatred against Olympia, is a controversial one and probably somewhat difficult to digest for many Alexanders’ admirers. Also, Ptolomey’s narration was at times too long to bear.

The situation is not much better with the acting as there wasn’t a single remarkable performance. Assuming the intention was to show Alexander as a sad, insecure and emotionally unstable person with lots to prove, then Collin Farrell was a good choice and he did a decent job. Angelina Jolie for most part overdid her seductive moves and her out-of-place Slavic accent ruined it all for me. She did have some good moments, when the look in her eyes and facial expressions were a lot more telling than her words. Anthony Hopkins’ character could have been shown a bit less in person, and could have done a lot more explaining of the story in just audio instead, not only because it would shorten a bit the film, but also because these scenes added little value to the story. I guess all actors were one way or another hampered by the directors’ demands and overall lack of the ‘wow factor’ in the movie.

I didn’t very much like the Macedonian statues as they were poorly made and seemed totally unreal and out of place. I did however enjoy some of the scenery shown as well as many of the costumes used. The fighting scenes were a mixed bag: some were a bit better, like the battles in India and some worse, like the battles in Persia. Again, I was a bit disappointed with director Oliver Stones’ choice in depiction of events as most fighting scenes didn’t really show enough the use of the Macedonian extra long spears (known as Phalanx) as an important if not key element of Alexanders’ victories: many of his enemies would die from these longer than usual spears before they could make any contact with his soldiers. In general, one could hardly make out what was going on for far too long in the fighting scenes, and as much as I accept chaos as a common denominator of many battles, the purpose of such a scene in a movie is also to give the viewer an idea of what actually happened. I sort of liked the scene in a difficult battle with the Indians where Alexander, utterly desperate from the prospect of loosing the battle and angered by his underperforming, exhausted and de-motivated soldiers, makes his way alone on his trusted black horse through numerous enemies to kill a deadly Indian mounted on an elephant. Alexander falls down wounded by the Indian and his bravery re-captures his soldiers’ respect. The slow-mow scene is good up to the point when wounded Alexanders’ red-background-vision gets a little too long to bear. I also didn’t like not learning what eventually happened to the Indian soldier. There were little or no special effects and not many scenes which would stun the viewer either. The designs of Babylon and other sites were technically correct; however they seemed very unreal, sterile and imaginary.

For all the reasons mentioned above, the whole movie is simply unconvincing and lacks strength. I would call it a below average product with a few interesting points, compared to the large sums of money used to make it and the cast. The few interesting points, however, would better fit a historic debate rather than a movie. All in all, an OK movie for a boring rainy Sunday afternoon.