Interesting, but an artistic failure

Rating: 3/10 (19 January 2005)

Mister Stone certainly took a risk by depicting Alexander, the great conquerer of the Persian Empire, as a bisexual general, loving both men and women equally, which was a wide-spread and accepted social behavior in Ancient Greek society. Although his romance with Hefaistion (as the Greeks would write it) is gigantically overemphasized, this should be applauded. However, we should be reluctant about this kind of 'Hineininterpretationen'. Oliver Stone certainly did a lot of historical research (and it shows) but social relations and love, especially between two men, had a totally different meaning and make-full than nowadays. This however, is not taken into account. As concerning the historical correctness, Stone did an effort to mix facts and fiction in an acceptable way. He failed. Some details are simply unacceptable. The battle of Gaugamela or Arbella for example was mainly fought by the Persian cavalry, and not by camels or entire hordes of light infantry. The famous oblique march of Alexander's infantry (though only shown in a single picture) and his personal attack on Darius are correct, as well as the huge dust clouds on the battle scene. Mister Stone is not very consequent in using this 'historical correctness'. The battle would have been much more agreeable to watch if the clouds of dust were not encumbering the view of the spectator and not obstructing the overview of the battle and thus showing Alexander's tactical genius. The battle scenes, as well as the 'bedscenes', two of the most difficult things to film, are not very succeeded. The personality of Alexander himself as shown in the film was a great disappointment too. Alexander the Great(a name given him by the Romans, not by Ptolemaios) was not the lover-boy or the manic-depressive (appologies if the term is incorrect) dreamer as presented in the film. Personnaly, I would not follow such a man to the end of the world. He was a general, first of all, who wasn't reluctant to destroy and plunder entire cities. He was an enormously charismatic man and inspired everyone that surrounded him. Sometimes I had the impression the man had to BE inspired all the time to carry on. He had a vision, and the film makes a good attempt to depict this vision, but does this by means of unnecessary long dialogs and scenes. Sometimes the film is simply boring and especially incoherent, omitting important episodes in his life and overemphasizing unimportant details. His last battle, in which he almost died, is cinematographically spoken ridiculous and overromantisized. And of the record, battles in ancient history of grand scale were never fought in jungles or forests. Altogether, this film is a psychological failure and cinematographically spoken worthless and amateuristic. The great genius of Alexander, the first western conquerer with the aim of submitting the entire world to his dominion and forge a brotherhood of man between the races and nations he conquered, deserves a better film. Sincerely, Egmont Ruelens