Alexander Revisted: The Final Cut
Over the last two nights I sat down and watched Oliver Stone's third attempt at his film Alexander. Well holy shit, it was almost another movie compared to the disappointingly awful one I saw in theatres back in 2004. I have not seen the shorter 2005 DVD version which I have heard is "less gay, more action". Basically, it became a damn fine film, still some flaws, but damn fine none-the-less.
For starters, Stone increased the length of the film to 214 minutes, with an intermission at the two hour mark. This really fleshed things out, giving the characters more screen time to get some more depth. Their was also more action, as the battle scenes were longer and bloodier. Also, there is a lot more gayness in the film.
Perhaps more important than additional length, Stone drastically rearranged the scenes. This makes the film easier to follow and improves the pacing. Alexander's triumph at the Battle of Gaugamela is presented over the first forty minutes of the film, rather than nearer to the end. Also the film cuts back and forth between Alexander's youth and his campaigns, which structures the film to play out like an ancient Greek drama, rather than a straight forward narrative.
The Drama element simply wasn't present in the theatrical cut, as the rearranged scenes allow the story to alternate between Alexander's youth and his campaigns, in order to mimic the the stylistic elements of ancient Greek Drama. It's got your Catharsis, Peripeia, Harmatia and one hell of an Oedipus Complex. Vangelis' ethereal score serves as the Chorus. All that's missing is the Satyr play. Greek drama came in fours - three tragedies and a roaring farce to finish it off. The theme of being corrupted by going east is also strongly present, a common theme in Greek myth. As he gets closer to India, Alexander and his generals' clothing increases in finery as does the quantity of wine consumed. However Alexander also wanted to bring Greeks and barbarians together, so he adopted their customs, but this would not have been seen as a good thing to the ancient Greeks. Ancient Greek drama is probably the most important thematic element of the film - that Alexander's life plays out just like myths he idolizes. And it was completely absent before!
Depicting Alexander's bisexuality was probably the main reason (besides being a bad film) this film bombed with American audiences. However, adding more of it is actually a big improvement. The theatrical cut skimped on it to appeal more to American audiences, but the moony eyes and the single kiss were still too much, and it just seemed kind of cheap. The additional scenes on Alexander's bisexuality actually presented a much more nuanced view, more accurate to how the Greeks viewed such things, which is quite different to our own understandings. For one thing, the Greeks didn't see such relationships as romantic, but more as male bonding. It also wasn't considered effeminate - just think of the Spartans. And it was all about the thighs. Also, what is presented in the film is not explicit, although his encounter with Roxanne is.
While a vast improvement over the theatrical cut, the film still has a few flaws. The worst being that some of the acting isn't the greatest, although more screen time improves the acting by giving more context for why a character is being portrayed that way. Angelina Jolie's much lampooned accent is actually a Greek one, if modern. The Irish accents didn't bother me any more than an English one would, although there is this perception that the English have the official accent of history. Frankly the fact the film is in modern English is a bigger, although necessary, historical departure than any accent. The only other thing that would have been nice would have been a few scenes about Alexander's campaigns before the Battle of Gaugamela, particularly one about him being declared a god in Egypt, which would have added to the Greek Drama element. Stone took some artistic license with some historical details, but the choices improve the drama, so I won't really complain, as I don't watch movies for history lessons.
I'm kind of floored that such an awful film could become so good. The only other example I can think of is the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, which turned a mediocre film into one of the most brilliant historical epics I have ever seen, but director Ridley Scott invented the director's cut. Alexander is definitely worth a watch if you enjoy historical epics, if only to see the Battle of Gaugamela - a spectacular half hour of pure cinematic win, easily ranking as one of the best battle sequences committed to film.
However I don't think audiences would have liked this film any better - longer, more gay and less modern perspective.
For starters, Stone increased the length of the film to 214 minutes, with an intermission at the two hour mark. This really fleshed things out, giving the characters more screen time to get some more depth. Their was also more action, as the battle scenes were longer and bloodier. Also, there is a lot more gayness in the film.
Perhaps more important than additional length, Stone drastically rearranged the scenes. This makes the film easier to follow and improves the pacing. Alexander's triumph at the Battle of Gaugamela is presented over the first forty minutes of the film, rather than nearer to the end. Also the film cuts back and forth between Alexander's youth and his campaigns, which structures the film to play out like an ancient Greek drama, rather than a straight forward narrative.
The Drama element simply wasn't present in the theatrical cut, as the rearranged scenes allow the story to alternate between Alexander's youth and his campaigns, in order to mimic the the stylistic elements of ancient Greek Drama. It's got your Catharsis, Peripeia, Harmatia and one hell of an Oedipus Complex. Vangelis' ethereal score serves as the Chorus. All that's missing is the Satyr play. Greek drama came in fours - three tragedies and a roaring farce to finish it off. The theme of being corrupted by going east is also strongly present, a common theme in Greek myth. As he gets closer to India, Alexander and his generals' clothing increases in finery as does the quantity of wine consumed. However Alexander also wanted to bring Greeks and barbarians together, so he adopted their customs, but this would not have been seen as a good thing to the ancient Greeks. Ancient Greek drama is probably the most important thematic element of the film - that Alexander's life plays out just like myths he idolizes. And it was completely absent before!
Depicting Alexander's bisexuality was probably the main reason (besides being a bad film) this film bombed with American audiences. However, adding more of it is actually a big improvement. The theatrical cut skimped on it to appeal more to American audiences, but the moony eyes and the single kiss were still too much, and it just seemed kind of cheap. The additional scenes on Alexander's bisexuality actually presented a much more nuanced view, more accurate to how the Greeks viewed such things, which is quite different to our own understandings. For one thing, the Greeks didn't see such relationships as romantic, but more as male bonding. It also wasn't considered effeminate - just think of the Spartans. And it was all about the thighs. Also, what is presented in the film is not explicit, although his encounter with Roxanne is.
While a vast improvement over the theatrical cut, the film still has a few flaws. The worst being that some of the acting isn't the greatest, although more screen time improves the acting by giving more context for why a character is being portrayed that way. Angelina Jolie's much lampooned accent is actually a Greek one, if modern. The Irish accents didn't bother me any more than an English one would, although there is this perception that the English have the official accent of history. Frankly the fact the film is in modern English is a bigger, although necessary, historical departure than any accent. The only other thing that would have been nice would have been a few scenes about Alexander's campaigns before the Battle of Gaugamela, particularly one about him being declared a god in Egypt, which would have added to the Greek Drama element. Stone took some artistic license with some historical details, but the choices improve the drama, so I won't really complain, as I don't watch movies for history lessons.
I'm kind of floored that such an awful film could become so good. The only other example I can think of is the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, which turned a mediocre film into one of the most brilliant historical epics I have ever seen, but director Ridley Scott invented the director's cut. Alexander is definitely worth a watch if you enjoy historical epics, if only to see the Battle of Gaugamela - a spectacular half hour of pure cinematic win, easily ranking as one of the best battle sequences committed to film.
However I don't think audiences would have liked this film any better - longer, more gay and less modern perspective.