Delve into the mind-boggling missteps of the film “Alexander” (2004). Uncover the perplexing choices, from accents to storytelling, as Oliver Stone attempts to bring the tale of the ancient Greek conqueror to life. A visual marvel, but a narrative debacle.
“Alexander” (2004): A Cinematic Odyssey of Missteps and Marvels
Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” (2004) unfolds as a cinematic paradox, a journey through the mind-boggling decisions that transform a tale of an ancient Greek conqueror into a smorgasbord of clumsiness. The film, rich in visual splendor, stumbles over misguided accents and narrative choices that leave audiences questioning the sanity of highly-paid, respectable filmmakers.
Stone, often posing as a man of unbending sociological insight, weaves a narrative that, despite its grand visual skill, mirrors the depth of a third-grade essay. Known for his screenwriting prowess, exemplified by an Oscar for “Midnight Express,” Stone’s films reveal a penchant for presenting rudimentary studies of human nature beneath messy surfaces.
“Alexander” joins the ranks of Stone’s ventures, attempting to transcend the idiotic history of predecessors like “Braveheart” and “Gladiator.” The film initiates with a genuine effort to engage with the panoply of Hellenic culture. Aristotle expounding on philosophy, geography, and sexuality hints at an exploration beyond the norm. Stone endeavors to present Alexander’s life as a web, a nuanced dance of cause and consequence, reminiscent of his approach to “Nixon.”
However, frustration looms as the film abandons its potential early on, plunging into an atrociously staged Battle of Gaugamela. Stone opts for the familiar trope of a rousing speech to the troops, sidelining crucial elements like the tale of Philip’s assassination and Alexander’s complex relationship with his mother, Olympia, through ineffectual flashbacks.
Visually, “Alexander” offers occasional marvels, but they lean toward the wrong kind—a hyper-clean, art-pop music video reminiscent of the ’80s. The film’s relentless editing, coupled with improbable aesthetics and polished excess, diminishes the enjoyment of its ornateness.
Colin Farrell’s portrayal of Alexander struggles to find its footing, buried under chains and overshadowed by the film’s superficial treatment of his bisexuality. Despite pre-release hype, the exploration of Alexander’s relationships lacks depth and conviction, reduced to hesitant, gutless scenes reminiscent of a ’50s epic.
Stone’s timidity in portraying homosexuality contrasts sharply with his penchant for showcasing violence and heterosexual intimacy. The film falls into a trap of prissy absurdity, resulting in unintentional comedy, especially given Stone’s willingness to depict graphic violence.
The central theme of Alexander attempting to balance reason and emotion, passion and idealism, gets lost amid Platonic glorification and phallic symbolism. Moments that could have highlighted Alexander’s profound journey are eclipsed by a parade of stoned flower children and incessant shouting.
Stone’s film, attempting to engage with historical scenery, falters as a history lesson. Critical historical nuances are overlooked, leaving the audience unaware of the complexity behind Alexander’s Persian expedition and his role in reshaping the ancient world.
The film’s final quarter, detailing Hephaistion’s death, Alexander’s degeneration, and his abrupt demise, feels rushed and redundant. The cast, apart from Farrell, struggles to make a mark as human characters, and scenes of psychedelic excess dominate the narrative.
“Alexander” remains a testament to Stone’s love of excess and a blind sense of his own limitations. The film serves up decadence while hypocritically wagging a disapproving finger at it. It dances on the fringes of brilliance, occasionally capturing the magnitude of Alexander’s quest but ultimately succumbing to inconsequence.
In the end, “Alexander” proves to be a thunderstorm of visual marvels, historical neglect, and misplaced priorities—a cinematic odyssey where Stone’s artistic flair clashes with his inability to navigate the intricacies of Alexander’s extraordinary life.
