This afternoon my wife and I went to see Alexander, the new Oliver Stone movie. Since I was named after Alexander, I was not going to be deterred by the critics, who've called it things like "Alexander the Grating," and worse.
The opening credits were cool, but after that, man was it bad, druggy and vague.... I was generally fairly entertained by it, but unlike other Oliver Stone movies with incredibly strong, indeed obsessed, central characters (like JFK and Nixon), I came away with the feeling that Stone didn't know what to do with Alexander, or what he really thought of him. Stone's Nixon comes across as more ambivalent than you would expect, a man whose neuroses Stone has some sympathy for, and who ultimately Stone sees as betrayed by bigger things than himself (a shadowy conspiracy of right-wing Texans, the military-industrial complex, whoever). Stone's Alexander, in contrast, isn't complex, just muddled.
Was Alexander a mass murderer, bent on nothing more than the plunder of Asia and defeat of Greece's longtime foe Persia (though there was plenty of trade between Greece and Persia, of goods, mercenaries, money, etc.), or was a great unifier of Europe and Asia, driven by a vision of a hybrid, syncretic culture-- the Hellenistic civilization that ultimately resulted from his conquests? Stone has gone for the latter, but can't take his eyes off the violence with which Alexander had to pursue his goal. As a result, he can't quite turn Alexander into a modern hero-- someone whose principles are noble-- but can't disregard Alexander's incredible accomplishments as an ancient hero-- decisive, ruthless, nobly violent and violently noble, the embodiment of arete.
It's very striking that Stone chose not to make a movie about an ambitious but essentially idealistic empire-builder who, in the course of moving into the Near East, loses his bearing and morals. You might argue that Alexander went to Persia and India with a vision of uniting the world, or something that would have been recognized as noble intentions at the time, but both Alexandria and his Asian campaign grow more erratic, violent, and unmoored with time. Alexander plunders Asia, and it in turn destroys him.
There's a great cautionary tale in Alexander's story that, in a previous incarnation, Stone would have held onto like a rabid pit bull... but for some reason, he doesn't. His Alexander is alternately seduced by Persian riches and luxury, dark-eyed Oriental boys, and Rosario Dawson (huh?).
The movie's handling of Alexander's bisexuality is also just a mess. Forget the whole bad dye job, and the fact that his lover is one half of Milli Vanilli. When he and Hephastion are together, the movie turns into an episode of Queer as Folk. I mean, isn't it at all likely that Alexander's sexuality and the rest of his life were more of a piece? That his psychobiography wouldn't require the joint efforts of John Keegan and Armistead Maupin?
But then there's Angelina Jolie. It's possible that no actress has had as much fun with a role as Jolie has with Olympias. I agree completely with Slate critic David Edelman's assessment that
the only truly heroic presence in the picture is Angelina Jolie, improbably but delightfully cast as Alexander's imperious mother, Olympias. Jolie slits her eyes and toys with her lines, controlling the space without raising her voice. I don't care how nuts she is, Jolie is the real deal: a gorgeous, epic-scaled actress who can transform herself from the inside out. She could eat Colin Farrell for breakfast.... Forget Alexander: The film is a pedestal to Angelina the great.
I got to the point where I was laughing every time Angelina Jolie came on screen. Not at her, but with her. She plays Olympias a cross between Lara Croft, Queen Gertrude, and Anne Coulter-- but without the latter's sensitivity, modesty, and appreciation for nuance and ambiguity. I loved it.
Recent Comments