A muddled story of what could have been an epic

Rating: 5/10 (8 January 2006)

Alexander is one of those movies that people either love or hate, and while I see a few glimmers of what could have been a great epic, in summary it's a mess. I could write a small book about the issues I had with the movie, but here's the highlights:
Alexander's motivation- Why did he want to conquer? In Stone's view it was his mother pushing him, to be accepted after death by his father, to avenge his father, to reach the end of the earth and conquer anyone in his way, and to unite Asia and Greece. Any of these would have sufficed, instead we have too many to see a strong influence. Of them all, the uniting of Greece and Asia was perhaps the most profound and the one he most likely was unaware of in real life. A lot of the audience probably didn't know that Babylon was in modern Iraq, and Bactria was in Afghanistan. If they had truly been united in one empire, the world would be a very different place.
Alexander and Hephaestion's relationship- Depending on who's talking they were either lovers or the truest of friends. I won't step into the argument over which version was most likely true, just that you never really see the two being friends or particularly close until a scene where they start professing their undying....very-good-friendship to each other. Hephaestion is instead one of many lovers Alexander takes, male and female, and it was hard to see any real bond between them.
Historical trimming- Alexander did an awful lot in a short time, still Stone left out some parts that were essential, such as the untying of the Gordian Knot. Bagoas was a manipulator in Darius's court, and a power behind the throne. He was also the only person named as a beloved of Alexander and was eventually suspected of being involved in Philip's murder. Instead, Stone presents Bagoas as another pretty face lounging in the harem.
General inaccuracies/stupidity- In Stone's view of the ancient world, Greeks spoke with Irish accents, assassins would always stand before their victims and give long and guilty looks, and Macedonian kings would casually toss servant boys at their wedding over the table and rape them. I've usually heard that Alexander was dark haired, but if Stone wanted to make him blonde, why a color that looks deliberately dyed?
Who are you supposed to like?- True, the ancient world was another place, where views on sexuality and the male use of eyeliner were seen differently. Stone revels in trying to push these differences in our face (many of which are debatable) but never gives us characters we identify with or root for. Gladiator took even more liberties with history, yet the character of Maximus was very sympathetic. Alexander is presented by Stone as amoral, destructive, and more than a little weird.
Even more ironic is that the story arc of Alexander is, despite the trappings, incredibly conventional. Boy is born seeming destined for greatness, rises high, falters, loses friends, and ends in tragedy. That pretty much describes most of the hero epics out there. If all of us who don't like the persona of Alexander Stone presented just "don't get it" or aren't open minded enough, that's more Stone's failure as a director than our lack of appreciation for his work.