Temptation to rewrite history

Rating: 3/10 (24 December 2004)

Although the cinematic technique of the movie was successful and I enjoyed many aspects of the movie, including the camera, the performance of Farell (Alexander) and Jolie, (Olympia) and the use of symbolism, I did not enjoy the movie in general: The movie fails to generate a correct experience of 4th century BC on the audience and also fails to discuss the personality of Alexander in this environment. Considering the historical nature of the movie, it is the social duty of the director should make an effort to present the reader with an accurate outlook of the era and the personality of the historical figure in question.
*** POSSIBLE SPOILER *** One of the most disturbing aspects of the movie was its naive handling of the issue of bisexuality. The nature of the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion is never clarified in the movie. This approach actually would have been the best approach, only if Leto (Hephaistion) had not received such focus in the movie: When the director aims to present us the personality of Alexander, and the relationship is mentioned over and over again throughout the movie, the audience expects to learn the director's opinion of the true nature of the relationship. Whether Alexander shares sexual experiences with Hephaistion remains a mystery for the audience.
However, if the director had taken care to present us a view of the Hellenistic Period conception of sexuality - an issue on which it is possible to find an immense number of material - then we would have the chance to experience the world of Alexander and his personal response to it.
Another important point is the incorrect presentation of the concepts of "freedom," "nationality," and "fighting for homeland." Before the battle of Gaugamela, Alexander makes a statement, claiming that the Greeks ("Hellens" would actually be the correct nomination) are fighting for their homeland. Geographically and historically, this statement is wrong. At that point in history, the Hellenistic army is more than 1000 miles away from what may be considered the outermost borders of the original Hellenistic homeland. In fact, it is actually the Persians that may feel they are fighting for their homeland. Similarly, Alexander makes a statement that the people are fighting for their "freedom." However, we know that Alexander was proclaimed king after his father, and the monarchy, unlike the democracy of the city-states does not imply "freedom" of the people, but expects the people to be "subjects" to the monarch. There is no point in a king claiming that his subjects are free, whereas the subjects of the Persian king are not; they are both subjects! Similarly, considering that Alexander has enslaved the inhabitants of Thebes just four years before Gaugamela after a revolt by Athens, Thebes and Peloponessus against the Macedonian rule, it would be difficult to assume that the Hellenistic peoples of these cities would consider themselves of the same "nation" as their Macedonian rulers or "free" under the Macedonian rule - as opposed to the democratic city-state rule.
It is not difficult to understand Alexander's motivations: Instead of fighting for "freedom," "nation" and "homeland," (which are concepts of 21st century and appear as political agendas only in the last 3 centuries) Alexander was fighting for creating a unified world, the concept of ecumene, and he aimed to achieve this through a policy of conquest, reconciliation, mixed marriages, equality to Hellens and Persians, (homonoia) Greek being made the universal language and unified coinage. It would make much more sense to present these ideas (ecumene and homonoia, unification and harmony) as the high ideals of Alexander, instead of the made-up concepts that appeal to the audience of today but are historically incorrect.
In the same light, Alexander is portrayed as a naive lover of warfare and battles, and his political personality is not discussed at all. He had quite a lot of achievements after returning from his last campaign of Porus, most notably making the Greek language official language of his empire as a step towards creating a unified people. His political ideals are not discussed at all in the movie.
In addition, the costumes of Persians are mixed up with the traditional costumes of Arabic peoples. Similarly, the costumes of Sogdians are bad versions of traditional Turcoman costumes, and their dances appear to be a corruption of traditional Caucasian dances with an absurd hint of Indian dances. In fact, Roxane calls Alexander "Skender," which is the Turkish form of his name. This is as absurd as giving Rome & Juliet costumes to Julius Caesar just because they share a geography - or as absurd as having Toltecs perform a Mambo in a movie that would describe pre-colonial America. Sogdians or Skiths have no significant cultural relation to Turcomans and neither do Arabs of today to the Persians of Hellenistic period.
Instead of creating a real personality of Alexander, the personality is idealized into an idol for the average audience of the 21st century. Similarly, the conceptions of the Hellenistic Period are presented in the mockery of what they really are. It is a pity that possibly the most noteworthy persona of the world history is discussed with such a "light" approach in such a high-budget movie. To compare, Achilleus is - successfully - given a "human touch" in Troy, and the history is presented, although briefly, in a scene where Agamennon and Menelaus discuss the projected Hittite response to a possible Trojan victory, whereas in Alexander, even though Alexander is a real person and Troy is a legend, the history is twisted into a 21st century caricature, and Alexander's personality is discussed in extremely shallow terms.