The Moose Hole - Review of Alexander

Rating: 4/10 (25 November 2004)

Hollywood right now seems to be in the middle of a great revitalization of the swords and sandals genre once a prominent staple of the golden age of cinema with such classics as Ben-Hur and Spartacus. After being caught nearly off-guard by the Best Picture win of Gladiator at the Academy Awards in early 2001, major movie studios put the fast track on projects they once thought would never be made, including a large budgeted adaptation of the fall of Troy. Continuing with the subject matter of ancient historical figures and events, controversial filmmaker Oliver Stone, whose recent gushing documentary on communist dictator Fidel Castro received mixed reviews among critics and the public, has put his ten year plan of bringing the life of Alexander the Great to the big screen into action. He has had a lot to compete with in recent years including three others Alexander based projects developed just in the last few years  two of the most notable ones being the Martin Scorsese directed feature starring Leonardo DiCaprio and the ten episode HBO miniseries produced by Mel Gibson called Fire from Heaven. Leave it to Stone to continue making headlines, this time with rumors of the film's unconventional portrayal of the most influential figure in the history of Western Civilization  as a homosexual.
The story follows the eight years of constant warfare led against most of the known world by one man that would alter the course of Western Civilization forever. Born in July 356 B.C. (his exact date of birth has never been precisely determined) as son to Philip II of Macedonia and Olympias, Alexander was destined for greatness. After the assassination of his father, a plot many historians believe was conspired by Olympias, Alexander forced rebel barbarians in northern Macedonia out of the country and brought Greek city states such as Thebes and Athens under his control. Seeking revenge for the invasion of Greece in 490 B.C. by the Persian Empire, Alexander then set his sights east battling King Darius of Persia for control of the vast territory. After chasing King Darius for several years, Alexander arrived in Persepolis and discovered the dead body of the conquered ruler, apparently betrayed by his own men. Alexander enforced a blending of the Greek and Persian cultures instead of stripping each conquered nation of its cultural identity, which had been a staple of military conquest at the time of his invasion. This led to the spreading and vast acceptance of Greek culture throughout most of the known world, the most supreme and lasting influence Alexander's conquests had on the world. By the relatively young age of twenty-seven, Alexander the Great had conquered about ninety percent of the known world. Unsatisfied with simply conquering the Persian Empire, Alexander continued east into India but turned back home after one of the bloodiest battles his military campaign had yet encountered in their eight years of fighting. Despite being described as god-like figure, some say even a god himself, Alexander the Great met an inglorious demise, dying of a fever on June 10th, 323 B.C. The story for Alexander should be a shining example for future generations of intrepid writers on how not to pen an epic historical drama. In all honesty, Pearl Harbor's extravagantly clichéd storyline was far more engaging then this overblown snooze-fest. Granted this is an adaptation of some rather heavy-handed events in history that altered the course of civilization as we know it but the tone of the entire feature, including its less then important subject matters, can only be describe as being too austere to be taken with a straight face. The linguistic tone of the film's dialogue is so overblown as to be inadvertently laughable, a screen writing debacle that was obvious in another epic disaster earlier this year, Troy.
What is with Hollywood when it comes to making films about either the Greeks or the Romans? Does every actor and actress in these grand-scale epics have to have a British or Irish accent to them? Even Val Kilmer, who clearly isn't a native of the British Isles, has a slight accent to his voice! Other then that minor quip, Kilmer gives an engaging performance of a deeply trouble ruler. Philip II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander, is presented in the film as a disfigured drunkard and womanizer. Though he certainly overly relished in wine and women, there is no evidence to suggest that he was disfigured in anyway. If this is suppose to be a metaphorical device for interpreting his tortured soul or what have you then it should have been better explained through the language of the script as it is blatantly unclear to audiences. Olympias, Alexander's barbarian mother, played by Angelina Jolie, had a profound influence on the young ruler's life and should have had more screen time or more important sequences then what is presented in the film but this isn't of tremendous concern in the end. So little is given on the backgrounds of either one of Alexander's parents that the audience is often forced to interpret certain aspects of the film's story a certain way without any real knowledge as to whether it is correct or not. This isn't so big of a problem but it would have served the flow of the film better had Stone cleared those up a bit more then he did. Stone only alludes to a certain aspect of Alexander's strange life, this time his Oedipal attraction to his mother which greatly affected his sexual preferences throughout the rest of his life. Colin Farrell, despite his Irish accent intact throughout the film, really showcases his acting chops in this film, if anyone hadn't noticed already in Tigerland, Phone Booth, or Minority Report. Sporadically throughout the film director Oliver Stone alludes to Alexander the Great's supposedly homosexual preferences especially with his best friend Hephaestion, with whom it is well-documented the ruler had a close relationship with whatever that may be interpreted as. Unfortunately, despite the general acceptance by historians that Alexander had a preference for men, there has been no recorded evidence available to this point to suggest that the Macedonian ruler ever had a sexual encounter with any males of that time period, let alone his best friend Hephaestion. If those were more accepting times as Stone claims then there would be indication of so-called affairs but to date there has been no such discovery in any documents written about him. Whether you agree with the morality of homosexuality or not, one has to admit that Stone's faint allusions to Alexander's sexuality are cowardly at best, offensive at worst. Instead of making simple-minded, and blatantly obvious, allusions to Alexander's sexual antics why don't you just come out and admit to what the man was and not cower to the whim of certain fractions of the general public who may find the idea offensive. This is the simple case of put up or shut up and Stone seems to want to have it both ways, which doesn't bode well with anyone.
Overall, Alexander stays true to form of the romanticized image Hollywood has built up about the stylized epic dramas of Oliver Stone, that being that the film is excessively long, tedious, humorless, boundless in the realms of prodigal violence and loose sexual escapades, and its even looser interpretation of the facts of history. In essence, the basic make up of the modern Oscar nominee. Oliver Stone exemplifies in this film a severe problem that has succumbed a fellow socialist filmmaker, Michael Moore, specifically he likes to pick and choose through the piles of facts and theories those that are consistent with his particular line of thinking in order to force onto audiences his propagandist agenda. Yes, Stone did immortalize Alexander the Great as a child, he has stated this numerous times before, and nobody can really blame him for making a film that looks more favorably on his hero then actual history would suggest, but that does not give him a legitimate excuse to alter historical truths to his liking or give a ring of truth to inane conspiracy theories as he did with JFK. Can it be that hard to believe that Alexander, despite his spectacular accomplishments, was actually human and died of the flu or malaria? There is no evidence throughout known records to suggest that a conspiracy was led against Alexander, despite him being paranoid for a good portion of his life with the thought of such a thing, and poison actually being the cause of his death. Oliver Stone can believe whatever he wants but without any crucial evidence to back up his opinions and thoughts, he shouldn't be subjecting his audiences to hearsay and whatnot when that is far from the truth. Regardless of the fact that the film is about one of the greatest military strategists in history who had conquered most of the known world by the age of twenty-seven through countless bloody battles, only two engagements are ever focused on throughout the three-hour marathon, and even the facts of their interpretation have been arranged to the liking of the director, not historical relevance. Though several events depicted in the film are legitimate with historical records of that time, too often they are moved around to better suit the 'vision' of the filmmaker giving an extreme disadvantage to audiences in their understanding of the most influential figure in Western Civilization. Yes, there are certain moments in history that may not be as interesting as if someone jazzed it up a bit but this is supposed to be better? At least in school you had the school bell to look forward to liberating you from utter boredom, if you were that kind of person. Even if you were one of those individuals who got a kick out of reading up on history, you'll be wishing for that bell halfway through this deathtrap.