With the recent release of Oliver Stone's Alexander and the my son's homeschool World History's simultaneous study on the history of ancient Rome and Greece, I was interested to see what type of film this would be. Not one to rush into the theatre I read pre-reviews and reviews on various sites and in assorted magazines.
It has been my observation that most movies produced by Hollywood which are touted as being based on real events or actual people rarely depict them truthfully, factually or even objectively. To this end I don't expect much from Hollywood that is even remotely believeable.
However, given the military genius that Alexander was, the film falls short of displaying or speaking of any of the unprecedented battle strategies that won Alexander his fame. This man conquered much of the civilized world by his 20's, with decisive and grand victories at Issus, Tyre, Granicus cementing his reputation as a superb military tactician. His conquest of all of Asia Minor along with biblical Israel, Assyria and Egypt are not even mentioned, with the movie's first battle being the win at Gaugamela (now northern Iraq), and from there he pushes into the Hindu Kush ( now Afghanistan), and finally into India (and into the first and only defeat he ever suffered) from which he turns towards home; historically speaking because his armies refused to go any further.
The irony of Oliver Stone's portrayal and praise of Alexander in the context he gives him to filmgoers is of an Alexander as the propagator and promoter of one-world government and multiculturism while he (Mr. Stone), a leftist-revisionist filmmaker rags on President Bush for his supposed invasion of Iraq. Okay for Alexander but not okay for President Bush? And for that matter not even the truth as the United States does not invade to occupy, though plenty would argue with me that early settlers to America did just that to the Native Indians. But I am simply talking about the context of the American military.
Furthermore, instead of portraying the genius by which Alexander became great, Oliver Stone spends much time beefing up Alexander as the homosexual /bisexual with plenty of graphic gratuitous sex scenes of all varieties; violent and cruel included. Some of the reviews strongly disagreed with Oliver Stone's portrayal of Alexander engaging in homosexual sex, however, history does drop big hints that he may very well have. This information can be found in the fact that this behavior was widespread among the ancient Greeks, especially within their armies. However, once soldiers returned home it was to marriages and life as heterosexuals. This can lead one to conclude that homosexual behavior was a matter of culture and not genes, not to mention it shows that the ancient Greeks chose not to control their sexual urges, instead indulging in them. That is the history, not the movie.
Alexander was a charismatic and bold leader otherwise he would never have been able to command the loyalty of legions of men or conquer the lands as he did. The choice of Colin Farrell for the part in a good film about Alexander would not have worked, but in this seeming flop I guess he is as good as the next guy.
It is a shame that the opportunity for a gripping account of this larger than life legend, which would have opened up great discussion for older teens and for adults as well in both the historic and social content, was so mishandled and wasted.
The movie depiction of Alexander, from the numerous reviews I have read, is nothing like the riveting account I found in my son's world history textbook.
Recent Comments