Alexander (2004) Directed by Oliver Stone

MOVIE LINKS Official Site Listing on IMDB.com

Like everyone else who's discovered Mary Renault's extraordinary novel, The Persian Boy, I awaited the release of Oliver Stone's epic Alexander with huge impatience. I'd read in film magazines and online that Stone intended to convey honestly Alexander the Great's bisexuality, and that the character of Bagoas, a Persian eunuch of extreme beauty, who was given to Alexander following his conquest of Babylon, would be present in the movie.

The Persian Boy was one of my greatest influences as a young writer, right up there with the work of Tanith Lee, Jane Gaskell, Jack Vance and Michael Moorcock. While it is not a fantasy (although a lot of people would argue that it is, since Renault fleshed out immensely the scant historical facts), the first person narrative, the lush descriptions of an exotic lost world and the subtle sensuality of Bagoas's relationship with Alexander captivated me utterly. I read Jane Gaskell's Atlan series round about the same time, and perceived similarities in the stories – not least in the authors' styles – even though one story was set in the ancient world of our own reality and the other was set in the imagined realm of Atlantis. So, the idea of one of my favourite books being brought to life in a film, if only partly, was exciting to say the least.

There is no doubt in my mind that Stone used The Persian Boy as a resource, because I wasn't alone in spotting some direct references to the novel. And yes, Bagoas was in the movie, albeit without having one line of dialogue. But did it live up to my vision?

The answer is both yes and no, but I loved it regardless. Therefore, I've been astounded by the savage response from what appears to be the majority of movie-goers against the film. I mean, it does have its flaws (and in all honesty sometimes quite big ones), but I really can't understand the 'most awful film ever made' tag that it's acquired – even from people whose movie tastes are very similar to mine. One friend, who I imagined would quite enjoy it, found it almost impossible to watch and was extremely bored by it. Yet other friends really loved it. So what was in there to elicit such extremes of reaction? Here are my thoughts on what annoyed people.

The narrative structure of the film certainly isn't conventional, nor particularly tight. In fact, 'loose' might be a better description. There is also a lot of talking, which perhaps some viewers found tedious. A large part of the film is narrated by Anthony Hopkins' character of Ptolemy:

Now in his dotage, Ptolemy is shown periodically puttering about his palace, dictating his memoirs of Alexander and thereby filling in the details of his life and campaigns that Stone and his co-writers choose not to include in the flashbacks that form the bulk of the film.

- From a review by Eric D Snider

For some reason, Stone put an immense flashback to Alexander's earlier life in the last third of the film, which I personally thought would have worked better put in the right place chronologically, since it detracts from the forward motion of the story: obviously.

A lot of reviewers thought the film was confusing, as it focused on some events in the great leader's life while leaving out others, which were important to the understanding of Alexander as a human being. His rise to power is not shown at all. You go from seeing him as a relative nobody, in his father King Phillip of Macedonia's court, to commanding a great army at the famous battle of Gaugamela. I can understand why people wondered what the script writers were doing when constructing the story of Alexander's life for film.

Alexander's sexuality is referred to uncompromisingly, as is that of his fellow countrymen, which some viewers clearly found 'difficult,' but it's not shown overtly. At the other extreme, some reviewers were even annoyed about that too, especially the fact that the only erotic scene in the movie is between Alexander and the Bactrian wife he takes:

Her name is Roxane (Rosario Dawson), a Babylonian girl, (sic) and though the only sex scene in the film is between her and Alexander, it is never suggested that he actually loves her. His fondness for the menfolk is given much more weight, even though wariness on the part of Warner Bros. forced Stone to keep that aspect from getting too graphic. This fact will be met with appreciation by those who don't enjoy seeing gay sex scenes, of course, but it does seem silly to make a film about a gay historical figure, keep referring to his gayness, show him pining for his gay lovers, and then never actually let him be gay.

- From a review by Eric D Snider

Leto [who plays Hephaistion, Alexander's 'childhood sweetheart'] spends much of the film done up to look like a wet hippie, while Stone makes a good case for gays in the military. That the two are romantically involved is blatantly obvious, but the film seems scared to death to show them kissing or actually getting naked. Instead we're back to that narrator fellow who insists that they're each other's soulmate since obviously Stone is too inept or afraid to get down to showing it. At some point Jared Leto's faux-feminine performance simply becomes annoying, as do their furtively longing glances. Stone is a homosexual cock tease who ought to quit spending so much time beating us over the head with his characters' homosexuality if he's never going to really put it on display. It's a ridiculous game that insults the historical fact behind the people whose story he's telling as well as the intelligence of his extremely bored audience.

- From Joshua Taylor's review on Cinema Blend

I understand that sex scenes between Alexander and his gay lovers were filmed but never made it to the final print, for the reason cited above concerning Warner Bros. There's one kiss – between Alexander and Bagoas – and that is hardly a private, tension-charged moment since it's done in front of a huge crowd and at their encouragement. The scene with Roxane is probably the most wince-making in the entire movie, and to me seemed 'tacked on,' as if the director was nervous about Alexander's hitherto exclusively gay leanings and had forebodings about the response he'd get to it. Let's just say this part of the film didn't convince me.

Another thing that whipped viewers into a frenzy was the fact that the majority of the actors had UK and Irish regional accents. Most thought this was laughable, but I have to say it actually worked for me, and I didn't find it irritating or risible at all. While it is obviously not historically accurate, it's far preferable than just having everyone with an American accent, which is what usually happens in movies. (Although I do think that since Gladiator, and the cast's British accents in that, a lot of directors appear to think that the Brit sound is somehow classier for epics than the Yank. Think both King Arthur and Troy here too.) I think Colin Farrell made a good Alexander, even with the Irish accent!

Angelina Jolie, as Alexander's mother, also came under flak. This was both for her camped up pagan ways and her accent (a sort of sub-Russian, which I actually liked, even though it was camp). You could tell the actress was having a whale of a time with the part, and the character comes across as a flamboyant, self-consciously smouldering sort of creature. She wasn't unbelievable to me, but that might just be because of the circles I've mixed in! (I'm an old Goth, remember. Think: Eighties.) If reviewers were going to get nit-picky about her part, they should perhaps have mentioned the fact she describes the biting risks of a snake that's actually a constrictor, but not many people seemed to notice that, having been brought to a flabbergasted halt by her accent and unable to go further with the criticism:

[Jolie], who vamps it up like Theda Bara reborn and sports an accent as grotesque as the one her father John Voight did in “Anaconda,” is bizarre in the worst sense…

- From One Guy's Opinion web site

And a slightly kinder take from the same Eric Snider review quoted above:

Alexander's creepy relationship with Mom is one of the film's several giggling points, and in fact Angelina Jolie's entire performance is, I think, destined to become a camp classic, up there with Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest. (Jolie is one year older than Farrell, by the way.) She screams, schemes and moans with wild abandon, not to mention her fondness for snakes and her indescribable accent.

- From a review by Eric D Snider

There were also complaints about the battle scenes – too much of them or too little – and the Hero-style colouring of the conflict set in India with the war elephants. One friend of mine, incidentally, who watched it with me, said he kept expecting some cave trolls to come lumbering into that scene! It was somewhat reminiscent of the battle scenes in Return of the King, I suppose, but that's just an unfortunate coincidence.

So, given that I don't entirely disagree with all the criticisms, why did I come away from this movie satisfied when so many others didn't? To work this out, I have to mention another recent epic; King Arthur. Friends of mine were helplessly appalled by the liberties that were taken with the enshrined mythology of Arthur and his knights, and denounced the movie as a travesty. But when I watched it, it occurred to me to forget about the influences and just watch it for its own sake. If you're not busy being offended by the fact it's not Malory, the film stands up fairly well as a fantasy epic. I think it's partly the same with Alexander. Apart from the technical buffs, who seem to enjoy congratulating themselves on how cleverly they can pick the film's structure apart, a lot of people who've criticized the film are aficionados of Alexandrian history (often…um… 'self-styled,' it has to be said). These viewers cannot help but get hugely upset that their particular vision and beliefs are challenged or knocked over or just … well… not done how they would have done them. If you're really into something, you'll always take issue with the way it's filmed: look at all the LotR fanatics who detested Peter Jackson's excellently made adaptations of the books.

Alexander was always going to be an ambitious project, and even at three hours' length, Stone was never going to be able to tell the whole story. Perhaps some of his judgements concerning what he included and what he didn't can be questioned, but I still think it's a good film and certainly not the 'worst ever made.' I presume people who made that judgement haven't seen Gigli? For me, Alexander had an enchanting otherworldly atmosphere that stayed with me beyond the end credits. I got the same feeling when I first saw Fellowship of the Ring. Somehow, Stone made me believe in his world, flaws and all. It will never please anyone who likes fast-paced stories, because a lot of it is slow and meandering, but ultimately whether it's good or not will always be down to personal taste. I wouldn't even say 'go and see and judge for yourself,' in the confident belief that my view is the right one, because I know that even those of you who like the same things I do won't all buy into Stone's vision. Some of you will like it, some won't, and it really is all subjective.

Stone has, in my humble opinion, crafted a great film that will be appreciated by those with an open mind and patience. I have always had a high tolerance for long movies, and I think many films would be better if they were willing to add another half-hour. Is the movie boring??? Yes. But you know what, pacing is over-rated. Pacing is important to people who have trouble keeping awake at the movies. If you have the ability to remain focused on one thing for three hours, then you just might love "Alexander". "2001" is a poorly-paced, boring movie, but it's still one of the greatest films ever made. [Alexander is] a great film for those who will let it be.

- From a viewer's comment on the Internet Movie Database

Well, I'm not quite sure the person who wrote that should have used the word 'boring' in that context exactly. I think they just mean 'slow paced.' But anyway… I quoted it just to show that not everyone hates the film. I won't quote any of the more astounding detrimental remarks, since most of them are bigoted and offensive in the extreme, at which the most politically incorrect person in the world would balk. Check out the immense forum on Alexander on IMDB if you're interested, but brace yourself!

Back to Bagoas for The Persian Boy fans. Before I end this little piece, he has to be mentioned, not least because this historical character has a huge following online. After watching Alexander, I joined the "The Cult of Bagoas" group on Yahoo out of curiosity, and found there the same kinds of rants for and against the movie as can be found elsewhere on the web. (Perhaps the most amusing was from a woman who believes herself to be a reincarnation of Alexander, or something, and who devoutly insists he never had male lovers. Hmmm, OK, love. Whatever you want.) The actor chosen to play the part of Bagoas is perfect for it, even if he doesn't conform to everyone's vision of what this beautiful creature looked like. His presence is mostly implied rather than graphically depicted. Apart from his fabulous dance scene, and the aforementioned kiss, he mostly hovers at the edges of the film, administering to the troubled Alexander at all times. Sometimes, only his hands are in shot, and we get the briefest glimpse of his face to let us know he's in the scene. He's the one dabbing water on Alexander's face on his death bed, for example, and after Alexander murders one of his closest friends in a drunken rage, and is tearfully ranting to Hephaistion in his chambers, he's lying in Bagoas's arms, even though you only see the arms. This is subtly done, and although all Bagoas fans would obviously have liked to see more of him, I think his part was done fairly well.

I was looking forward to the DVD release, which I hoped would include a lot of the footage that never made it into the movie, including more of Bagoas, but in February 2005's Total Film magazine I read that although Stone plans to do a different version of the film, it's implied he's going to cut even more all the references to Alexander's homo/bisexuality! There was no mention of the other criticisms that have been levelled against the film. Stone must really have been scared by those nasty reviews then! The fact is, he couldn't win. For some, Alexander was too gay, and for others not gay enough. My personal opinion is that the director was brave in making this film, and has – while weathering terrific storms of disapproval – opened the way for other projects that address the subject seriously and honestly. For someone who writes a lot of homoerotic material, and who has seriously doubted any of her work ever being filmed because of it, this is a welcome thing. All I can say is, Mr Stone, please ignore the detractors and give the multitude of your fans out there, who are not offended or frightened by what you tried to convey, (and they are legion), the cut of Alexander they'd really like to see.

About the Author:
Storm Constantine... well, I think we all know who Storm Constantine is. She lives in Stafford, England, with her husband Jim and nine cats. More info: http://www.stormconstantine.com.