Didn't like Alexander? That's because you're stupid says Stone

I don't remember seeing any critics complaining about the masculine/feminine aspect of the film. If anything, most critics complained that Stone didn't explore that side of Alexander enough.

People aren't ripping into Alexander because it's too complex. They're ripping into it because it's a needlessly convoluted mess.

And if Stone had just stuck to his guns and kept the full relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion in, nobody'd be complaining how incomplete it felt.

Though I understand how defensive one can get about something you've worked so hard on, Stone should maybe try to LEARN from Alexander's failings so he doesn't make the same mistake later.

Actually it's pretty stupid how much Stone doesn't understand history NOR context....

So whatever comes out of his mouth regarding this film....simply confirms this.

Oliver Stone has gotten a pass for shit like glaring historical innaccuracies in Nixon and JFK, it's amusing that he insults the audience when most of them are being forgiving towards Alexander. If it didn't fit into the "Hollywood formula" then why even bother making it. I like how he still plays the misunderstood artist after all of this years making films in Hollywood. Had he concentrated on telling a good story instead of being indecisive about the movie's content and treating homosexuality in a juvenlle fashion, the movie would have been confident, more enjoyable and found it's audience. He has no one to blame but himself for the failure that is Alexander.

I was so sure that Stone wouldnt pull a Vincent Gallow on us, but its sad that he has. I hate it when film makers cite the audiences lack of sophistication for the poor box office of a movie. Part of the reason the movie did fail was because it wasnt what the audience expected, fine.

But remember the movie NEVER opened big, not in the first weekend, as most big movies tend to do. Why? Largely because of poor marketing, that can't be blamed on the audience can it.
I did although think the movie wasnt any where near as bad as people claimed it was, I liked that it was different, but still in the end it is Stones own fault and stupidity not to realize that a movie like this would fail. A good film maker has to know the limits of their audience, whether or not stone thinks the movie is good, he should have realized that this movie doesnt have much chance in the US.

Yep.

Come on! Has Oliver Stone been Uwe Boll-ed? I'll see when it opens in Spain (Jan 5th, I think), and I'll see it for myself.

BTW, the only ones who could have done a Thatcher biopic where The Monty Phyton.

A Thatcher biopic wont get off the ground until the hateful cow is 6 ft under, which hopefully wont be too much longer.
Peter Richardson should direct it (Strike!, Churchill: The Holloywood years, etc etc)

She'd just rise from the grave and try to take control of it.

I think that Stone should go fuck himself. Plenty of much more sophisticated movies do well at the box office. I saw this movie and I can honestly say that none of the themes went over my head at all. News flash to Stone: MANY, MANY books and movies have explored the issue of homoerotic love. You are not a maverick. If Stone had any balls at all he would have actually shown the two men getting it on. You wanna know why he didn't? BECAUSE HE HAD TO APPEAL TO CONVENTIONAL MOVIEMAKING IN THE HOPES OF MAKING MONEY! The issue that people had with the movie was that the narrative structure was crap, and the movie didn't get into the character of Alexander enough. A filmmaker should be able to tell his story very easily in three hours.

Looking at Stone's comments above, it seems ambiguity (ie, "indecisiveness") was his goal. If you're saying that the lack of a simple, clear viewpoint & narrative in the movie made the film less enjoyable for viewers, then really, aren't you just proving his point?

And in response to this thread as a whole, I think the thread-starter should write headlines for The National Enquirer. Conventional minds can mean just that--conventional. It's not the same as stupid. A dictionary should illuminate the rather large difference between the two terms. Stone's other comments certainly seem to indicate he meant conventional--expecting the usual--as opposed to stupid. Is he just being careful with his words? Maybe. But virtually every film geek worth his/her salt has at one time complained about the way American audiences want the same old (ie, conventional) shit all of the time. Stone's just beating the same drum.

That said, if he knew this going in, he should just shut up and be happy he got to make the film. This just makes it sound like he knew it was gonna bomb and conned ze Germans out of $160 million anyway. Good thinking, Oliver.

No. The film is an uneven mess but not for the reasons Oliver Stone intended.

There may be filmmakers this year who could bitch and moan and talk about how their film failed at the box office because people here are too "conventional". Oliver Stone and "Alexander" ain't one of them. I actually liked his movie, but it does have problems. And they are in the pacing, the unwieldy sprawl of the film, lack of a clear viewpoint, and a sense of talking down to the entire audience.

The homosexuality? That's the least of the film's "problems", and reallynot that big of a deal. He spent so much time worrying and tweaking it to try and make it "ambiguous" when it was everything but. He and everyone else overreacted so much about the election that they forgot that "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy" are two of the most popular shows on TV and countless shows and movies have gay characters. People didn't stay away because they heard Colin Farrell kissed a dude, they stayed away because they heard it was a boring 3 hour mess.

I'll argue the artistic merits of "JFK" all night, but going to bat for "Alexander" makes Stoe seem even loonier than he is.

Ambiguity is one thing, a confused mess is another. Alexander was a confused mess.
The film's problem is not the homosexual angle, but the bad storytelling, some incredibly bad editing decisions, miscasting the main role(Farell is a good actor but he was wrong,wrong,wrong for Alexander),
and Stone's ego run wild.
What Stone does not address is that a lot of critics who have been his staunchist supports hated the film.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that Stone is aiming squarly on the European market, suggesting that American audiences are a bunch of idiots, but that Europeans audiences will recognize the film as the masterpiece that it is...at least in Stone's mind.
Who knows, it might work...although even then the film's backers are going to take a bath on it....

Yeah, and since when are massive egoists delicate with their words? If there's anybody in Hollywood who just wouldn't give a damn, it'd be Stone.

Also, "reading between the lines" when you're as paranoid about Stone as he is about the world can be a problem. Take a moment to actually read the rest of his words. What does he talk about? That's right--he talks about how risque and _unconventional_ his film is. Hence, the people who react negatively to these elements prefer conventional things; they have conventional minds.

If I were just reading the single headline, then I'd agree with you. But his explanation seems very specific and he could've said many other things to imply stupidity if that were really his point. Also, just in my experience, I know a lot of rather intelligent people who dislike unconventional films. Exquisite taste in film is not a requirement of intelligence.

I must have seen deeper into this movie than Stone thought the average conventional mind would have. See, I thought there were real villians in the film. The haunting, often mixed messages that plagued Alexander in my opinion made the parents villians. Alexander's own paranoia and dellusions made him a villian to himself. There were real, one dimensional villians scattered throughout the film anyhow. I thought that the end of the movie was actually very well done. It was just that the first two hours were so wierd that it was starting to get hard to follow. I mean the film skipped straight from Alexander the 18 year old to his big battle against the Persians. WTF? Bad choice Stone. You see, people want to see how the hero became a hero. A flashback two hours later doesn't help us much at all. By this point we've made up our minds and figure that we're gonna get screwed out of any sort of explanation. I am by no means saying that films have to be linear, but the protaganist's journey should feel like our own. The audience should feel heartache and sadness when he dies. It's not like we can't relate to the character either. I mean who doesn't feel like their parents fucked them up in one way or another? What about expectations leading you to poor choices? Forbidden or secret relationships? Come on Stone, we're not as stupid as you think. Oh and by the way, I used to live in Europe and Europeans are actually more conventional than Americans when it comes to movies and music. Trust me.

He was talking about every European, minus the French, of course

Y'know what the big problem with _Alexander_ is? Colin Farrel. I wouldn't follow that guy across the street, much less follow him into battle. "Conquer your fear & you shall conquer death," indeed.

Everytime I see Colin Farrel I see... Colin Farrel. The guy looks like an actor.

ha ha. Good to know that i'm not the only one who thinks twitchy little Irish guys are sketchy.

Yes. There was no way to recover from this miscasting. The movie loses two stars before it fades in.

And even Jared Leto was bad casting. Frankly, I just don't believe Hephaestion was that "girly".

These men were stone killers who conquered the known world FIRST. They were homosexual lovers SECOND. Hephaestion didn't mince around, and Alexander didn't grovel and whine about his mother.

Angelina Jolie was a really bad move, too.

Between the miscasting and the too-clean production design, the film isn't convincing as history for even a single frame. You never, ever, ever come close to believing you're seeing something out of Hellenistic times. Add the simple fact that Angelina Jolie is in the film, and all this could EVER have been was camp - but Stone boxes you out of enjoying it as camp, too.

Colin Farrell was brilliant, and Devin declared his work to be Oscar worthy. I think many in this thread never as the film and are going on what they caught from the trailer. There are innumerable moments I could now list that show Farrell's utter mastery of the role, but instead I will just point you to the confrontation with Black Cleitus in India. The way his tone changes from jolly and good natured, to suddenly cold and humorless, as he first spars playfully with Cleitus over his complaints, but then turns to anger when Cleitus would question Alexander's right to compare himself to figures of myth, is just astounding to see

 

Its one of my all time favorite movie scenes, and Farrell knocks it out of the park

 

Anyway, Stone was right, I think many in the united states who complained over Alexander were simply people who had no knowledge of who Alexander was or what he was about. They wanted MAXIMUS 2.0, and instead they got the most fascinating character from all of history

 

EDIT: Jolie is terrible thoug, and virtually ruins most scenes in which she takes part. I will give you guys that

I think Colin Farrell was capable of turning in a good performance as Alexander. I think the fundamental problem with the film is Stone's take on Alexander the man. You're telling me the guy who conquered almost the entire known world was an indecisive ninny?! No. Just no.

 

Also, the way the Homosexuality (or Polymorphous sexuality if you prefer) was portrayed in the film was American childishness in the extreme. NewsFlash to Oliver Stone, Hollywood and American film audiences: not all Homosexuals mince and flop around town. There are gay men and women who act just like (gasp!) straight folk! And a Greek of Alexander's Day, a King and a solider, couldn't have acted the way that Stone portrays. No way would the guy in the film earn the loyalty of his soldiers plus numerous vanquished peoples. Which is not to say he'd have been like Patton either.

 

In short, I think Stone made a grave error in how he portrayed his protagonist and mishandled the portrayal of ancient Greek Society.

 

Oddly I think Angelina Jolie did a great job. She shows the Crazy Eye in all her scenes, and one can well believe that with this chick as his mother, Alexander (anyone really) would have some serious Mommy issues.

Edited by Cylon Baby - 12/30/11 at 10:00pm

 

 

Edited by Princess Kate - 12/30/11 at 10:28pm

Abso-fucking-lutely. Ancient Greeks had zero problems with dudes fucking dudes. What they had a HUGE problem with, to the point of violent reaction, was effeminate men. Neither Alexander nor Hephaestion would command even an ounce of respect if they went about the way they were portrayed in this. And it's weird because Stone portrayed Phillip exactly right. And don't get me started on Jared fucking Leto being cast. According to all accounts Hephaestion, though very handsome, was a damn Terminator looking dude with a commanding presence and instantly owning  any room he stepped in, not some fucking twink.

 

Fun fact: Did you know that there was a gay slur in ancient Greece, κίναιδος (kinaidos), meaning "one who moves in a shameful way" that was used for effeminate gay men? This would have been used constantly about those guys.

 

 

 

 

Farrell's Alexander is not effeminate. Leto is, but I can see how Stone was doing that to set his character apart from the others, the rest of the companions are shown to dislike Hyphystian and mistrust his relationship with Alexander. This is also expanded on in a few scenes in the final cut

"κίναιδος!"

 

Oh, also, Farrell's iconic line as he makes his crazed elephant charge in India, gloriously ecstatic at the bloodshed around him (to the horror of his men), "isn't it a lovely thing to live with great courage and to die leaving everlasting fame?", is one of my top movie moments ever, with Alexander riding off hacking wildly, then charging the elephant as the camera goes out of focus

 

 

Hrm?

Robin Lane Fox should shut his face. I was angrier at him more than Stone because he is indeed one of the pre-eminent Alexander scholars and yet he went along with the completely inaccurate, even contrary to his own writings, representation of both the battles portrayed in this film. Stone turned the battle of Hydaspes, Alexander's and one of history's most tactically and strategically brilliant battles into some lame Vietnam analogy. We get it, Stone. Fox should have known better, not go along because Stone let him play pretend phalangite.  

 

 

Stelios it's not about "Vietnam", it's informed by Vietnam, but it's about that moment for Alexander and its an amazing piece of filmmaking. This is exactly the wrong kind of thing to get up in arms over. Would Stone have loved to have shot Farrell charging up a 50 foot wall and taking an arrow to the lung? Of course. But there was no money for that

 

The battle we get in the movie is about condensing the entire Indian experience into one scene, which it does brilliantly, and it gets across just how alien the situation the Macedonians found themselves in was

 

EDIT: and oh, since Fox IS one of the preeminent Alexander historians, and is on the DVD expalining his take scene by scene and published writings in support of the films I will take his word over yours. Being Greek does not automatically make you an expert

 

 

PS the shot of Alexander and Bucephalus rearing against the elephant was shot real for real, and says more about Alexander's character than a strategically correct battle scene could have

 

 

As it is the handling of Guagamela earlier in the film shows his battlefield brilliance as well as it could have been depicted

 

That point had been made, it was time for the movie to use war scenes for other story telling purposes 

That scene crystalizes what I found wanting in this movie. He's fucking pouting and about to cry because his men are pissed.
 

 

 

 

Except that is what happened! He had those guys all stoned to death, 5000 of em, and he got emotionally torn up over relatively minor slights

 

He is wounded that his troops do not understand his grand vision and goals, that they were ultimately just on a quest for riches, while his quest for glory had no real end

 

That is what that scene is about: "Do you not see?!"

 

 

You have to understand that this was a guy who was extremely young, the ruler of the known world, the richest person on earth, and literally worshipped as a god. He was on a quest to immortalize himself in myth - to out do the myths

 

His emotional state is known to have been all over the place

That's my main gripe with this whole misbegotten project. It's condensed to the point of not having any value. If you don't have the money to do the subject justice don't do it at all.

 

Would it be OK if someone made a WWII movie in which the French campaign was "condensed" into the Allies making an amphibious landing in Paris through the Seine led by Ike himself? Portraying history, unless you go the Inglourious Basterds way, comes with a price for all this ready made drama. Stone, to make the point he wanted to make could have easily focused on the Vactrian campaign or the Indian campaign and succeed instead of making this compromised mess of a film. This whole movie screams of "Oh shit I have not the time nor the money to do what I wanted to. What now?"

 

And the thought of my opinion not mattering to you will definitely give me many sleepless, agony filled nights. But history is history and on that front this film failed, wildly.

 

 

I'm sure he had violent mood swings, but I seriously doubt he had them in public...ever. If there's one common thread that runs true throughout human history, it's that Leaders, Great and small, create a public persona that is consciously intended to project absolute certainty, steadiness, perhaps even "steeliness". That's from the Pharaohs through Caesar through Ronald Reagan through Vladimir Putin.

 

 

Dear Cylon Baby,

 

You are just speaking without any factual basis for your statements

 

 

You could not be more wrong, and it's frustrating since you are making declarative statements on the matter without having ever apparently done any real research into Alexander

 

The murder of Black Cleitus happened exactly as in the film, especially the final cut which includes Cleitus storming back into the room after having first been removed

 

Alexander ran  one of his fathers best friends through with a spear, a guy he'd known all his life, that had saved his life in battle, after Cleitus suggested that 1) Alexander was not a god 2) Alexander's mother was a barbarian 3) That alexander should live in shame for the death of Phillip, implying he was behind the murder (extremely unlikely)

 

 

He did this at a party in front of the whole court

 

 

That is but one incident, the most famous, but there are more

 

After this incident Alexander was inconsolable, weeping, talking about suicide. People thought he HAD killed himself, and were freaking out 

 

They were so worried that when he finally emerged and agreed to soldier on, everyone had completely forgotten about Cleitus' murder and was happy that Alexander was going to keep on summoning the will to live

 

 

Is that "steely"? No. It's the life of Alexander the great 

Edited by Princess Kate - 12/30/11 at 10:55pm

Who cares what you think Alexander was actually like Kate? What matters is what is dramatically interesting. Watching Colin Farrell pout is not dramatically interesting.

Oh, I forgot about that. It should be "κίναιδε!"

 

"Hey, it's all Greek to me!"

 

 

 

Haha...I'll let myself out.

Well 1) Technically he killed Cleitus at a private party, thus by definition he was not in public but 2) yes I overstated a bit.

 

In the Wikipedia entry on the murder (which you kindly PM'd me) there is this interesting sentence:

 

"In all of the four major texts we possess, it is shown that Alexander grieved greatly for the death of Cleitus. His grief could be genuine or contrived. Cleitus was a member of the generation of Philip II and Alexander had been systematically killing off that generation to keep his generation in power. Alexander may have genuinely not wanted to kill Cleitus, making it possible that this was one of many examples of post-traumatic stress disorder."

 

Which brings up an interesting speculation. Suppose Alexander was really a cold hearted bastard, consciously planning his career and the deaths of the Macedonians who formed his initial base, but who were proving troublesome (and who may not have viewed him as a God the way more recent comrades might)? Or perhaps he ordered Cleitus out to the boonies to protect him from the purge, out of friendship, but Cleitus forced his hand.  Or we could postulate a third scenario, a compromise if you will, wherein Alexander does what he needs to do, but feels remorse for doing so. EDITED TO ADD 4th scenario: Alexander has a PST Freakout and just kills Cleitus for no damn reason.

 

All of those scenarios are more interesting than what I saw in the film.

As for your comment that "that's what happened, there are (at least) 4 accounts of what happened, with significant differences (EG Cleitus left the room then came back, no, he never left the room). So it's a mistake to say that anyone knows definitively what happened.

But to the issue that started this thread: why the movie fails as a movie: We don't really get into Alexander's head, we just see isolated incidents from his life, many of them obviously speculative. In my post above I lay out 4 scenarios for why Alexander killed a close comrade. It would have been interesting if Stone had used that event to probe into Alexander's motives, his character, what demons drove him etc. That approach would have melded well with Stone's "psychedelic" and Layered editing techniques a la JFK.

Or, he could have used Francis Ford Coppola's screenplay for Patton as a model: use a progression of events to illustrate aspects of Alexander's character.

 

What we got was a barely coherent mishmash of styles.

Yeah, I never saw it, but I remember how when the movie came out, a friend of mine made a similar complaint about getting no sense of who the guy was. He compared it to "The Aviator", saying, "now that's how you do a biopic".