Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Alexander Revisited


"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." --Edward Hickson, "Moral Song"

It probably took less effort for Alexander to conquer the world than for Oliver Stone to get the version of the movie he wanted out to the public. This is the third edition of his "Alexander" that Warner Bros. have issued. First, there was the theatrical version, 175 minutes; then there was the Director's Cut, 167 minutes; now there's "Alexander Revisited," presumably Stone's last word on the subject, 214 minutes. For the Director's Cut, he removed eight minutes of material; not happy, he has now restored about forty minutes. The film comes in two parts, with a director's introduction and an intermission.

"If at first you don't succeed, to hell with it!" --Charles E. Fritch, short story

The years 2004 and 2005 were big on sword-and-sandals epics from big-name directors. We had Antoine Fuqua's "King Arthur" (2004), Wolfgang Petersen's "Troy" (2004), Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005), and Oliver Stone's "Alexander" (2004). I can't say that any of them--movies or directors--succeeded to any remarkable degree, nor am I convinced that making an interminably long film even longer helps the situation much.

In his introduction to "Alexander Revisited," Stone tells us that this third version of the movie was done exclusively for the home DVD audience, and that it now resembles those epics of his youth, with an intermission at just the right time between the two parts. The intermission, he says, makes the film seem less rushed and gives viewers a chance to look back on what they've just seen and think about it.

He explains that he changed the movie's structure, starting "on a different note with the battle of Gaugamela up front, and in between we have the story of Alexander's youth and how he became such a great leader." Therefore, in theory, you start with a much stronger Alexander at the beginning and you're shown how he gradually got there. You should also see the family relationships better as Alexander grows up. At least, that was the intent of the new edit.

Stone continues his introduction by saying it was a totally new experience for him to recut a film without the restrictions of length or studio interference, without critics, uncensored, unrestrained, a freedom he had never had before. He goes on to say, "Those of you who liked the first 'Alexander' I think will like this even more. Those of you who hated it, I think you're going to hate it even more, but I think it's crazier and it's better that way. And I can go to my grave with a good conscience." Lastly, he tells us in a printed insert that we can "rest assured this my last pass, as there is no more footage to be found." OK, I won't argue. Stone probably did make a better film this time around, just not a wholly memorable one. Let's take a look at this third version.

"Fortune favours the bold." --Virgil, "The Aeneid"

Let's begin by making it known that Alexander was a Macedonian, a king of ancient Macedonia, which in the 4th century B.C. achieved predominance over Greece, as "Revisited" makes clear. Present-day Macedonians made such a fuss about this matter during the movie's theatrical run, they practically besieged movie houses worldwide. Now, if only director Oliver Stone had been able to engender as much passion in his recut movie as the Macedonians did in their concerns about it, this over-lengthy film might have had a chance of entertaining us.

As it is, Stone's "Alexander Revisited" is too long and dragged out to be any more effective than his first two versions were. In real life, Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.) was a king of Macedonia, a ruler of Greek city-states, and a conqueror of the Persian Empire from Asia Minor and Egypt all the way to India. In Stone's portrait of the man, he seems a little less than "Great." He's, like, Alexander the Lukewarm, the Insignificant, or perhaps Alexander the Jabberer, he talks so much.

I suppose we figure on a lot from the director of "Platoon," "Wall Street," "JFK," "Born on the Fourth of July," "The Doors," and "Salvador." We may forget that he also gave us such clunkers as "Nixon" and "Any Given Sunday." Nor does everyone remember the man's excesses. When Stone does something, he periodically gets carried away with it, leading some critics to believe that he can become too obsessed with his subject matter. So it is with "Alexander Revisited," where Stone wants to do a comprehensive character analysis, a historical documentary, a battle epic, and possibly even a parable about our own times all rolled into one gigantic, three-and-a-half-hour product. Stone overextends himself. Anyway, let me list a few of the things I liked and a few of the things I didn't like about this newly expanded extravaganza.

Strengths:
1. I liked the opening credits, which are quite beautiful, artistic, and creative.

2. I liked the settings and set designs, starting with the renowned port of Alexandria, Egypt, and then on to the ancient city of Babylon. This is spectacle on a scale of Cecil B. DeMille and a delight to the eye.

3. I liked the costumes and pageantry, particularly Alexander's triumphal entrance into Babylon, which must be one of the most spectacular scenes ever filmed.

4. I liked the musical score by Vangelis. It may not be as remarkable as his score for "Chariots of Fire," but it's got some good, subtle, simple tunes working for it, as well as a few instances of big-screen grandeur.

5. I liked Val Kilmer as Philip, Alexander's lustful, boisterous, libertine father. "All your life, beware of women" is the best advice he finds for his son.

6. I liked parts of the battle sequences, especially the CGI and aerial shots in the early sequence against Darius. It's brilliantly reenacted and powerfully conveyed, despite my reservations about close-ups below. I liked the director's devotion to realism, meaning that the fighting is bloody and riotous in the extreme.

7. I liked some of the newly added material, especially those parts that helped clarify Alexander's character, as well as a few more poignant segments. A scene among the wounded directly after the battle of Gaugamela is quite touching.

8. I liked the greater emphasis in "Revisited" on the philosopher Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), Alexander's teacher, as he discusses with him and his boyhood friends the importance of male relationships, emphasizing a proper perspective on dreams, ambition, reality, and desires of the flesh.

9. Speaking of which, I liked Stone's more open treatment of Alexander's homosexuality this time around. Homosexuality and bisexuality were common practices in ancient Greece, but Stone never explored the ideas for any specific purpose the first time around. Nearly every other scene made some reference to Alexander's love for his boyhood friend and adult lover, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), or his eyes for male dancers and so on. Yet Stone did little with this behavior before but hint at things. Now he is more explicit, with scenes involving Alexander and Hephaistion and Alexander and a young Persian attendant. Moreover, the first cuts of the movie barely mentioned Alexander's new wife's envy of Hephaistion, an envy that lasted for a couple of minutes in a single scene and was heard of no more. But this time we see more of it. And besides that, we also see more of his new wife, and I mean that literally. "Revisited" contains more nudity and sex than the first renditions, and anything is a help.

Weaknesses:
1. I still didn't care for the way the story kept jumping around in time. Yes, Stone has tried in "Revisited" to iron out the erratic timeline of the first movie and make things more linear, but it's not enough. The film begins in 323 B.C. at the death of Alexander, then moves ahead forty years to a scene of old Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) as he dictates Alexander's history to a scribe (and to us). After that, the narrative flip-flops around, starting with Alexander's triumph over Darius, the King of Persia (against overwhelming odds), and then going back and forth in Alexander's 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. It's not quite so disconcerting this time around, with the narrative a trifle more direct, but I continued to find the director's storytelling more than a bit convoluted and distracting.

2. Although I think Colin Farrell is a terrific actor, I didn't care for his casting as Alexander, either as a teen or older. The myths said that Alexander was born of Zeus, a myth that his mother, reputed to be a sorceress, continued to foster. But I found Farrell too old for the part of the teen Alexander and too wimpy, whiney, and indecisive as the adult Alexander. He's supposed to be a puzzling, unsettled character of whom we must ask, how did he manage to conquer half the known world at such a young age? Was he a great strategist, a great leader of men, a great warrior? In Farrell's (and Stone's) hands we never find out. Alexander seems merely a restless, sometimes petulant, ofttimes conflicted individual who has nothing better to do than conquer countries and name new cities after himself (something like seventeen or more "Alexandrias"). He seems entirely devoted to individual freedom, and he is most generous to his defeated enemies, yet many of his own people saw these traits as weaknesses. We see them only as contradictions that are never resolved in a military man. Worse, Farrell never dominates the screen as the heroes of other big-screen epics did. Looking back, Kirk Douglas, Charlton Heston, Clark Gable, even the stars of "The Lord of the Rings" were able to hold our attention, no matter how big the production was around them. Farrell tends to get lost in the surrounding spectacle.

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." --Edward Hickson, "Moral Song"

It probably took less effort for Alexander to conquer the world than for Oliver Stone to get the version of the movie he wanted out to the public. This is the third edition of his "Alexander" that Warner Bros. have issued. First, there was the theatrical version, 175 minutes; then there was the Director's Cut, 167 minutes; now there's "Alexander Revisited," presumably Stone's last word on the subject, 214 minutes. For the Director's Cut, he removed eight minutes of material; not happy, he has now restored about forty minutes. The film comes in two parts, with a director's introduction and an intermission.

"If at first you don't succeed, to hell with it!" --Charles E. Fritch, short story

The years 2004 and 2005 were big on sword-and-sandals epics from big-name directors. We had Antoine Fuqua's "King Arthur" (2004), Wolfgang Petersen's "Troy" (2004), Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005), and Oliver Stone's "Alexander" (2004). I can't say that any of them--movies or directors--succeeded to any remarkable degree, nor am I convinced that making an interminably long film even longer helps the situation much.

In his introduction to "Alexander Revisited," Stone tells us that this third version of the movie was done exclusively for the home DVD audience, and that it now resembles those epics of his youth, with an intermission at just the right time between the two parts. The intermission, he says, makes the film seem less rushed and gives viewers a chance to look back on what they've just seen and think about it.

He explains that he changed the movie's structure, starting "on a different note with the battle of Gaugamela up front, and in between we have the story of Alexander's youth and how he became such a great leader." Therefore, in theory, you start with a much stronger Alexander at the beginning and you're shown how he gradually got there. You should also see the family relationships better as Alexander grows up. At least, that was the intent of the new edit.

Stone continues his introduction by saying it was a totally new experience for him to recut a film without the restrictions of length or studio interference, without critics, uncensored, unrestrained, a freedom he had never had before. He goes on to say, "Those of you who liked the first 'Alexander' I think will like this even more. Those of you who hated it, I think you're going to hate it even more, but I think it's crazier and it's better that way. And I can go to my grave with a good conscience." Lastly, he tells us in a printed insert that we can "rest assured this my last pass, as there is no more footage to be found." OK, I won't argue. Stone probably did make a better film this time around, just not a wholly memorable one. Let's take a look at this third version.

"Fortune favours the bold." --Virgil, "The Aeneid"

Let's begin by making it known that Alexander was a Macedonian, a king of ancient Macedonia, which in the 4th century B.C. achieved predominance over Greece, as "Revisited" makes clear. Present-day Macedonians made such a fuss about this matter during the movie's theatrical run, they practically besieged movie houses worldwide. Now, if only director Oliver Stone had been able to engender as much passion in his recut movie as the Macedonians did in their concerns about it, this over-lengthy film might have had a chance of entertaining us.

As it is, Stone's "Alexander Revisited" is too long and dragged out to be any more effective than his first two versions were. In real life, Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.) was a king of Macedonia, a ruler of Greek city-states, and a conqueror of the Persian Empire from Asia Minor and Egypt all the way to India. In Stone's portrait of the man, he seems a little less than "Great." He's, like, Alexander the Lukewarm, the Insignificant, or perhaps Alexander the Jabberer, he talks so much.

I suppose we figure on a lot from the director of "Platoon," "Wall Street," "JFK," "Born on the Fourth of July," "The Doors," and "Salvador." We may forget that he also gave us such clunkers as "Nixon" and "Any Given Sunday." Nor does everyone remember the man's excesses. When Stone does something, he periodically gets carried away with it, leading some critics to believe that he can become too obsessed with his subject matter. So it is with "Alexander Revisited," where Stone wants to do a comprehensive character analysis, a historical documentary, a battle epic, and possibly even a parable about our own times all rolled into one gigantic, three-and-a-half-hour product. Stone overextends himself. Anyway, let me list a few of the things I liked and a few of the things I didn't like about this newly expanded extravaganza.

Strengths:
1. I liked the opening credits, which are quite beautiful, artistic, and creative.

2. I liked the settings and set designs, starting with the renowned port of Alexandria, Egypt, and then on to the ancient city of Babylon. This is spectacle on a scale of Cecil B. DeMille and a delight to the eye.

3. I liked the costumes and pageantry, particularly Alexander's triumphal entrance into Babylon, which must be one of the most spectacular scenes ever filmed.

4. I liked the musical score by Vangelis. It may not be as remarkable as his score for "Chariots of Fire," but it's got some good, subtle, simple tunes working for it, as well as a few instances of big-screen grandeur.

5. I liked Val Kilmer as Philip, Alexander's lustful, boisterous, libertine father. "All your life, beware of women" is the best advice he finds for his son.

6. I liked parts of the battle sequences, especially the CGI and aerial shots in the early sequence against Darius. It's brilliantly reenacted and powerfully conveyed, despite my reservations about close-ups below. I liked the director's devotion to realism, meaning that the fighting is bloody and riotous in the extreme.

7. I liked some of the newly added material, especially those parts that helped clarify Alexander's character, as well as a few more poignant segments. A scene among the wounded directly after the battle of Gaugamela is quite touching.

8. I liked the greater emphasis in "Revisited" on the philosopher Aristotle (Christopher Plummer), Alexander's teacher, as he discusses with him and his boyhood friends the importance of male relationships, emphasizing a proper perspective on dreams, ambition, reality, and desires of the flesh.

9. Speaking of which, I liked Stone's more open treatment of Alexander's homosexuality this time around. Homosexuality and bisexuality were common practices in ancient Greece, but Stone never explored the ideas for any specific purpose the first time around. Nearly every other scene made some reference to Alexander's love for his boyhood friend and adult lover, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), or his eyes for male dancers and so on. Yet Stone did little with this behavior before but hint at things. Now he is more explicit, with scenes involving Alexander and Hephaistion and Alexander and a young Persian attendant. Moreover, the first cuts of the movie barely mentioned Alexander's new wife's envy of Hephaistion, an envy that lasted for a couple of minutes in a single scene and was heard of no more. But this time we see more of it. And besides that, we also see more of his new wife, and I mean that literally. "Revisited" contains more nudity and sex than the first renditions, and anything is a help.

Weaknesses:
1. I still didn't care for the way the story kept jumping around in time. Yes, Stone has tried in "Revisited" to iron out the erratic timeline of the first movie and make things more linear, but it's not enough. The film begins in 323 B.C. at the death of Alexander, then moves ahead forty years to a scene of old Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) as he dictates Alexander's history to a scribe (and to us). After that, the narrative flip-flops around, starting with Alexander's triumph over Darius, the King of Persia (against overwhelming odds), and then going back and forth in Alexander's 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. It's not quite so disconcerting this time around, with the narrative a trifle more direct, but I continued to find the director's storytelling more than a bit convoluted and distracting.

2. Although I think Colin Farrell is a terrific actor, I didn't care for his casting as Alexander, either as a teen or older. The myths said that Alexander was born of Zeus, a myth that his mother, reputed to be a sorceress, continued to foster. But I found Farrell too old for the part of the teen Alexander and too wimpy, whiney, and indecisive as the adult Alexander. He's supposed to be a puzzling, unsettled character of whom we must ask, how did he manage to conquer half the known world at such a young age? Was he a great strategist, a great leader of men, a great warrior? In Farrell's (and Stone's) hands we never find out. Alexander seems merely a restless, sometimes petulant, ofttimes conflicted individual who has nothing better to do than conquer countries and name new cities after himself (something like seventeen or more "Alexandrias"). He seems entirely devoted to individual freedom, and he is most generous to his defeated enemies, yet many of his own people saw these traits as weaknesses. We see them only as contradictions that are never resolved in a military man. Worse, Farrell never dominates the screen as the heroes of other big-screen epics did. Looking back, Kirk Douglas, Charlton Heston, Clark Gable, even the stars of "The Lord of the Rings" were able to hold our attention, no matter how big the production was around them. Farrell tends to get lost in the surrounding spectacle.

No comments: