Alexander by Oliver Stone - Movie Review Example

Review of Alexander Movie Movies are one of the significant sources from which we can know about our history. In the long history of cinema, there are long lists of historical movies, which give us detailed accounts of certain important periods in our history. Alexander (2004), which is directed by Oliver Stone and starred by Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie, is an example of such historical movies. It is one of the best made films that depict the historical character of King Alexander the great, King of Macedonia. The movie traces the life of Alexander since his childhood till the moments of his victory over various enemies. Within the depiction of the various battles that Alexander went through, the movie depicts the development of his character and the relationships with the important persons in his life. Despite the well-known history of Alexander the Great as one of the most courageous military leader, Stone does not give much detail about the battles, which Alexander shared in. This is deliberately made because Stone did not want to show Alexander only as a great leader in the battlefield, but also "as a tormented man who carried a great weight" (Murray). Thus, many of the events of the movie are narrated from the point of view of Stone, the director, shaping the movie with a subjective aspect. However, despite the lack of objectivity that should characterize historical movies, it can still be claimed that Alexander is one of the professionally-made movies that give the audience a comprehensive picture about the life of Alexander the Great with all his moments of victory, suffering, and loss. In this movie, the director succeeds in showing the greatness and uniqueness of Alexanders character, which are reflected in the fact that he became the ruler of his people at a very young age. Stone professionally depicts the various moments of victory and success in Alexanders life since his early childhood. This well-presentation of the character of Alexander the Great in this movie is praised by many famous movie reviewers. For example, in an article that is entitled "Alexander Movie Review," Sean OConnell analyzes the professionalism with which the character of Alexander the great is portrayed in the movie. As the son of Philip of Macedonia, Alexander led his army and became the King of the Known World while he did not complete his 25 years of age. His courage and decisiveness showed up early, as he took his army east and made a series of conquests to acquire and explore new lands and enlarge his kingdom. His desire to conquer and swallow up more and more new lands reflects his willingness to be a great leader of a huge empire. In that sense, Stone succeeds in giving the audience clear idea about Alexanders nature as a great military and political leader. This mastership of Stone making this well-depiction of Alexander as a great leader is strongly praised by critic, Tim Spalding. He declares that Oliver Stone gives a well-documented historical movie by tracing the life of Alexander and following "the Macedonian conqueror from childhood to death at 32" (Spalding). Consequently, from the cinematographic point of view, Alexander is a great movie, as the director succeeds in constructing an image of Alexander as a leader, emperor, and courageous fighter. Oliver Stone, in this movie, does not only focus on Alexanders military talents and achievements; rather, he sacrifices a good portion of the movie to tell us about Alexander, the man, not the emperor or military leader. He achieves this goal by giving so much detail about the personal and family life of Alexander during his childhood, adolescence, and manhood (Tobias). So, Oliver puts much focus on Alexanders personal relations with his mother, his friends, and his lover. This focus on Alexanders personal relations and feelings gives much credibility to the whole work. That is, Stone did not want the movie to be just a historical representation of the character of Alexander, the Great as a military leader; rather, he wants to give a comprehensive account of the character of Alexander, with all its aspects, including strengths and weaknesses. Actually, the director, intentionally, limits the war scenes in the movie to two only, representing Alexanders wars in Persia and India. The aim of this is to give enough time to portray Alexander, as a person, not only as a military man. As noted by critic Ian Nathan, Stones well-depiction of Alexander as a man who has his own personal feelings and sufferings is reflected in the fact that "the first hour [of the movie] is spent prying on the younger Alexanders fractious relations with his demented parents, the psychological fuel to his all-conquering mania" (Nathan). Therefore, one of the positive aspects of Alexander as a historical movie is that the director does not focus on one aspect of the character of Alexander only; rather, he attempted to cover as many aspects and sides of his character as possible in order to produce a comprehensive historical documentation of an important character in history. However, Stones desire to give enough focus on Alexanders personal life has caused him to be increasingly subjective throughout the movie. In various instances, Stone gives his own interpretation of certain events or attributes in Alexanders character with great deal of subjectivity. This is reflected in focusing on some controversial aspects of Alexanders character that is not agreed upon by historians. Two clear examples of this subjectivity in the movie can be seen in Alexanders claimed greediness and bisexuality. From Stones point of view, Alexanders military achieved are only driven by his greedy nature to construct a huge empire in the world. Stone stressed this greedy nature of Alexander through various dialogues between him and his mother and friends. Actually, his greedy nature is not only reflected in his military achievements, but also in his personal life also. His heart did not suffice with a one lover, but he split his devotions between his male lover Hephaestion and his Asian wife Rosario Dawson (OConnell). Stone presents Alexander as a bisexual greedy character, whose main aim in life is to enlarge his kingdom and seek his own interest and enjoyment. Although historians do not agree upon Alexanders bisexuality, Stone puts much emphasis on this attribute of Alexander to send the message that the movie is designed with a great deal of subjectivity. Nevertheless, this subjectivity hurts the movies credibility and authenticity as a reliable historical documentation. That is, Alexander should be viewed as a well-made artistic work, not as a true representation of a historical character. In order to help him give a subjective aspect to the movie, Stone resorted to the use of the flashback technique in order to be as selective as possible. Stone chose to use the flashback technique to trace the military achievements of Alexander as well as the most important moments during his life. The story of Alexander the Great is told by Ptolemy, who is starred by Anthony Hopkins. Ptolemy was one of the generals in Alexanders army, and so he witnessed most of his military wars. At the end of the military raids of Alexander, he appointed Ptolemy as a Pharaoh in Alexandria. So, the story of Alexanders conquests is told about 40 years later by Ptolemy, one of the important eye witnesses, in order to add it to as a scribe in Alexandrias famous library (Chattaway). This flashback technique allows Stone to perfectly portray the most important battles and moments in Alexanders life without being necessary to order the events chronologically. Rather, Stone went back and forth in the history of Alexander in order to relate the main events in his life significantly not chronologically. That is, Stone puts much focus on the events and attributes which he sees significant, and disregard others, which he sees as not important, while in fact they may be historically significant. Thus, this flashback technique hurts the authenticity of the movie as a historical depiction of an important era in history. As noted by Tim Spalding, "historical movies can become divorced from the history they are said to dramatize" (Spalding). Consequently, the direction technique Stone chose to use helps him to be more subjective, sacrificing the aspect of authenticity and reliability of his historical movie. The flashback technique which is used by Stone in this movie does not only hurt the credibility of the historical aspect of the movie, but it also hurts its construction. The audience would not find it easy to find the logical development of the events because the movie goes back and forth among events and characters with no strong connection among them. This aspect weakens the technicality of the movie, distracting the audience from the significance of the events being presented to them in the movie. In his review article, which is entitled "DVD Review," John J. Puccio points out that one of the major movie deffects is that "the narrative flip-flops around needlessly, going back and forth in Alexanders life from his boyhood to his manhood, back to his childhood, ahead to his teen years, back again to his boyhood, forward again to his adulthood" (Puccio). According to Puccio, this technique weakens the integrity of the movie and does not help the audience in focusing on and tracing the historical events which the movie depicts. This flashback technique could be useful in other kinds of movies which are built on dramatic events, while the chronological order is the best technique for historical movies because it helps the audience follow the events as they actually happened in history. Consequently, it can be said that the technique which Stone used in this movie did not help him make a well-constructed historical movie that attracts the attention of the audience towards the significance of historical characters and events. Nevertheless, there are still various good aspects in the movie, which may make it attractive for some audience. One of the strong aspects of the movie is that the director has made beautiful and well-constructed settings, where the events took place. In this context, various movie critics praised the way Stone designed the settings in the movie. For example, Puccio declares that he appreciated "the settings and set designs, starting with the renowned port of Alexandria, Egypt, and then on to the ancient city of Babylon" (Puccio). Another strong aspect in the movie is mastership in making the costumes and pageantry, which succeed in catching the attention of the viewers. According to various movie critics, some of the positive aspects of Alexander include "the costumes and the pageantry, particularly Alexanders triumphal entrance into Babylon" (Puccio). Thus, it can be argued that Alexander has many positive aspects and strengths which have made the movie one of the best-made historical accounts of the story of Alexander in modern history. In addition, the characterization is professionally made by Stone, for the sake of leaving the strongest impact possible on the audience. For instance, Angelian Jolie succeeds in portraying the character of Alexanders mother, with all her inner feelings, emotions, and love for her son. As noted by Jeremy Fox, member of the Online Film Critics Society, "Angelina Jolie seems the right choice for Olympiass," alexanders mother (Fox). Thus, this professionalism in characterization gives the movie its strenth and weight as a successful work of art. Therefore, it can be said that the movie has various positive aspects that aim at impacting the audience and producing a well-presentation of an important historical character. To conlcude, it can be said Alexander is one of the professionally-made movies that depict an important and significant character in history with his achievements, sufferings, and moments of success and victory. Despite some of the technical deffects in the movie, such as the use of the flashback technique, it is still a valuable work of art that aims at documenting an important era in human history. However, what diverts this movie from being an authentic historical documentation is the great deal of subjectivity with which the director narrates the events and presents the characters. Although this subjectivity may help the director produce a well-constructed work of art, it yet hurts the reliability and credibility of this movie as a source of history. Works Cited Chattaway, Peter T. "Alexander." 24 Nov. 2004. 29 Nov. 2011. Fox, Jeremy C. "Alexander: An Epic Bore." 05 Oct. 2006. 29 Nov. 2011. Murray, Rebecca. "Alexander Movie Review." 01 Apr. 2008. 29 Nov. 2011. Nathan, Ian. "Alexander." 19 Apr. 2008. OConnell, Sean. "Alexander Movie Review." 23 Nov. 2008. 29 Nov. 2011. Puccio, John J."DVD Review." 21 Jul. 2005. 29 Nov. 2011. Spalding, Tim. "Review of Alexander." 29 Nov. 2011. Tobias, Scott. "Alexander." 22 Nov. 2004. 29 Nov. 2011. Read More