Alexander and globalisation

Rating: Null/10 (21 December 2004)

Alexander did not meet the expectations of the average movie-lover. The American critics have been out expressing dismay at the production while comparing it with Troy and Gladiator. Criticisms of the film, however, have focused on technical aspects that are hard to look upon as the sole tally of failure or success. In Alexander attention is likely to focus on how to tailor the many and diverse details of the biography for a three hour drama. In Troy and Gladiator the mythical aspect could only allow of a simple story-line that was overshadowed by the high production techniques employed to picture the battles. But with Alexander, a fully realistic account tinged with myth, it was difficult to undertake a similar task. It would not have been acceptable to give myth the upper hand in a treatment that depicts the life of a significant pioneer as Alexander. Obviously Alexander's history corresponds with a current political trend: globalisation with a Western nation being the main player in turning it into a reality.
Itis hard to underline that globalisation was Oliver Stone's major concern that had to crowd out the hero's multi-faceted biography. However, it is important for one to consider how the film has unfolded along these two lines. Here is an extraordinary hero who for the first time in history is deviating from the ideals of nationalism and military glories. This is the student of Aristotle, who comes under the influence of that all-ages scholar to imbibe a new perspective of military conquests. It is one aimed at the unification of the human race and the intermarriage between East and West. How this perspective had developed was not really clear in the episode dealing with his childhood, which focused mostly on the elements that led to his bisexuality in years to come, mainly his attachment to his semi-sorceress mother queen Olympia and the tarnished image maintained of his father, king Philip. As he set out to conquer the world no mention was ever made of Egypt, the first and one important station in his seven-year march. It was in Egypt that he first had to confront the Persians who colonised that country. It was there that the secret of his parentage, being the son of Zeus, was revealed to him at the temple of Amon, the chief Egyptian deity. We are not told he had adopted the Egyptian religion as a way to integrate into other cultures. The only reference to Alexandria are the scenes in which Ptolomey figures to relate the life-story of the hero in flashbacks. But still one good point is that his blurred sexuality consisting in his shyly expressed love for his friend Hephaistion and his desire to woo other peoples through intermarriage do go parallel with his yet immature ideal of marching further towards the East in spite of his army's pathetic condition. Alexander proposes to the daughter of Darius, the defeated Persian king after he prevails over the Persian troops in Babylon. He marries Rexona, the nomad Asian princess before he proceeds to conquer India. At two points, unlike other conquerors, he is paying homage to the conquered nations. In Babylon he is refuting the fact that the Persians were as coarse and chaotic people, as they were always told as children. In Asia he is talking of the Asians as nations who have advantage over Greece, being builders of civilisations that were ahead of Greece in time! Definitely the concept was new and as a pioneer Alexander could not help sometimes succumbing to the prejudices of his own people. Traditional imperialists, the Greek would certainly opt to assert their identity and boast of their superiority over the conquered groups. They fail to understand the philosophy underlying Alexander's move to marry a nomad princess and carry on with his ventures even when his soldiers had been fighting for eight years. At that early stage in humanity's development Alexander's plans were doomed to failure. After he died, his empire was divided into four parts and the Greek, like the Persians, Romans and many who followed emerged as mere colonisers. As for Alexander, his view with regard to world unity had remained the subject of a serious debate: Why cannot the world turn into a global village, the aim of today's world politicians? Stone might have offered part of the answer. The approach of the Greek, as given by him in that production, still stressed the obsession of today's West with the ever-present pre-eminence of the West over the East. The first clash of values as represented in the Occident ( Greece- later Rome ) and the Orient ( Persia) was hardly ever there. With the glittering towers and torch-lit avenues of Babylon, the Greek continued to regard the Persians as coarse and uncivilised. But even today Alexander is inspiring lofty and ambitious world leaders. His concept to globalise the world had faltered as will today's. This is simply because a common ideal for all nations is essential before embarking on any move towards that end. But so far Islam will remain the only successful, though the hardly-ever-cited, attempt to globalise the world. Nations are bound to have different languages, customs and outlooks as long as they exist. It is such a cumbersome task to offer an Alexander with a high entertainment value. Although there was room for improvement, still Stone, despite the diversity and complexity of Alexander, has managed to produce a thought-provoking movie, which justifies its little appeal for a pleasure-seeking cinema-goers. The matter is not yet over, for the coming productions on Alexander will show how others can improve on Oliver's work. Finally all these filmmakers will have to stand the test.