Oliver Stone's Alexander

Is Stone's Alexander as pathetic as many said so? I think not. For one, he scores rather high on historical accuracy. There're alternations that I think he does it purposefully and are well within artistic license (e.g. Darius III's family was captured in the battle of Issus not Gaugamela; Alexander got his arrow wound when laying siege to an Indian town not from the battle with prince Porus; and he returned to Babylon not because of his wound but a mutiny, etc.). Stone also pepperes the actual events with interesting titbits of legends, such as the Persian Queen mistaken Hephaestian as Alexander, which touch up the characters nicely. And of course, the battle scenes are breathtaking to say the least. Watching the phalanxes in action is such a thrill! They make all the sword buckling in Troy (one of the worst in 2004) look like child's play. Peterson is no match for Stone-no two ways about it!

What I think are some of the bummers include Stone's fixation on Alexander's "sexuality" (this is in fact not the right word to use, as people in the antiquity didn't look at sex the same way we do today) when it doesn't have a lot to do with how Alexander has come to be. Stone's reasoning for the less than enthusiastic reception to the picture is that people are taken aback by the "homosexual" undertone, but he forgets he's the one who plays it up! The tiring Freudian interpretation of Alexander's insatiable appetite for conquests and battles (yeah, mother again), and the perplexing choices of leaving out some of the important exploits in the early career of Alexander as a conqueror (particularly the atrocity he committed in Thebes and the battle of Issus when he let Darius flee and thus set the stage for Gaugamela) also leave the audience cold. The biggest blunder has to be his shyness in forming an opinion about Alexander when we really expect one from him. Stone does make up his mind on some whodunnit mysteries, such as who killed King Philip and was Alexander poisoned by his Companions, but they're not what we expect from someone who's famous for his propensity to take side on more important issues, such as how Alexander should be remembered. Stone's adviser Robin Lane Fox describes a Homeric hero in his book, but under Stone's lens, Collin Ferral's too busy exchanging seductive glances with Jared Leto that Alexander looks more like a gigolo than hero. Ptolemy's final comments about how great and flawed a person Alexander was is downright cliché and stupid!

Stone does his best in painting a picture of Alexander, a towering historical figure so complex that historians still have a lot to debate and study, and that is truly admirable. Anyone with a passing interest in Alexander should go see it. Stones stretches our attention too thin sometimes with a plethora of Greek names and geographical locations that no sane person can pronounce, least of all work out their relations; nevertheless, it's still good education if you have the patience. You may very well leave the theatre feeling more cultured. Don't get me started on how Alexander will turn out if it falls on the hands of lengend-butchers such as Jerry Bruckheimer and gangs. Why can't people just cut Stone some slack? This is more than a passable job. The Chinese title of the picture defies Stone's intention to tell the story of a person rather than a king, especially when Alexander isn't all that much of a king.