A Biopic Of Noteworthy Achievement.

Rating: 7/10 (19 January 2005)

One of history's' most notable figures once again graces the grand cinema stage. With a massive budget, an accomplished director and a newsworthy ensemble cast, one would expect a positive opening. This was, however, not the case. In fact, critics have slated it and many viewers have vociferously voiced objections. Despite the negative attention, as a fan of Oliver Stone's, I found it difficult not to enjoy. Against this background I will discuss the salient points.
Alexander's sexuality is a core issue. The inclusion here is for me to bring forth a real impression of what Alexander was like. Indeed as Alexander creates the empire in his vision, he begins to experience dissent within the ranks, his sexual tendencies lean more towards men. At one point of his life, not included in the movie, Alexander considers suicide when Hephaistion dies and therefore some of Alexander's behavior is a consequence of what he was.
Stone has signed himself some artistic license with the portrayal of Alexander's mother. Angelina Jolie takes to the task admirably. She uses a Romanian vampire  like voice while adorning herself with snakes - a consequence of her religious tendencies. Her voice is what distinguishes the character and I am sure that Stone liked the look of Angelina's prominent lips, attractive - mind you, as it accentuated the image of a serpent. This portrayal displays a manipulative woman with intent against her husband, Prince Philip. Jolie gives us an entertaining insight into the motivations of the mother. We see her impact on Alexander.
The flashback to the death of his father is done to illustrate how the event affected him. Story flow is crucial but given the length of the movie and the fact that we were given further insight into the character of Alexander, it was the appropriate thing to do. This as an influential factor on Alexander's drive and ambition was critical and well highlighted.
The high points of the movie were the battle scenes and here again we see the strategic use of Alexander's extensive history of battles. The first one at Gaugamela is indicative of the height of Alexander's leadership. He takes on an apparently insurmountable force and displays single mindedness to kill Darius in the field. His tactics proved correct as Darius fled. He was the heart of the Persian army  without him they ceased to function as a cohesive unit and thus folded.
The camera work is panoramic and emphasizes the tactical battle by displaying the opposing forces with their deliberate placement and order. The close  ups display the ferociousness of the encounter and the brutality of war in those times is clearly depicted. It also helped to indicate the glory of this great time in Alexander's life. The soaring eagle as a metaphor for Alexander's greatness was at no time more relevant than at this battle.
The final battle at the Hydapses River showed his deep  set belief that he was the son of Zeus. When the lines started to retreat, he charged forward and crashed into selfless attack thus motivating his forces to follow. The next scene was a defining one for Alexander. He turns to charge an elephant, undaunted, driven by rage and self  belief. His equally brave horse, Bucephalus, rears up to face the enemy and the two are momentarily frozen in time facing each other like bitter enemies. The image represents Alexander's drive and ambition and his unwavering bravery against foes far greater in size and number. It is the most endearing one of the movie. The image of Alexander in the minds eye of Stone.
A justifiable point is that the accents did nothing to serve the biopic. I do understand that Stone was trying to illustrate the cosmopolitan nature of dialects, but the obvious European accents only served to distract the audience from the story and yanked us from what was a seamless story flow. I did get used to it, but the impression did linger long after leaving the cinema. Although it was not enough to ruin my enjoyment, it is a detractor and the attempt did not follow through.
What interested me after seeing the movie was to access if Stone was still delivering after being many successful years in the industry. The best comparison for me was to compare two scenes which depicted the soul of the movie. The first is the eternal image of a soldier in 'Platoon', arms open to the heavens crying for the loss of innocence and tragedy of the Vietnam War. This while listening to the melancholic soundtrack forever etched on movie history. It was an enigmatic image, simple in design, masterful in delivery.
Already touched on is the confrontation with the elephant. Although the scene itself has the same effect, the lead  up to this scene showed camera effects by the way of red tint and is followed by Alexander being carried away on his shield in grandiose fashion. It is this added complexity that Stone has added to his work that seems to be an influence from 90's Tarantino work that makes me favor the scene from 'Platoon'. It seemed more pure and unadulterated. The point here is that although the unique craftsmanship of Stone's is still strongly evident, it seems to have taken a new direction by way Tarantino.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is an exercise in futility. A dictation of history serves a lesser purpose and it does not move man forward. Greater understanding of great figures in history can only enrich us. This fact as well as the fact that the life of Alexander could not be adequately displayed given the time constraints that the big screen has, shows that Stone chose the correct analytical path to portray a character that has obviously occupied his mind for most of his life. In an era of remakes and sequels, it is most welcome.