The narrative sequence can be called looking back at Asia from Africa and then looking back at Europe. The elderly Ptolemy living in Egypt recalled the experience of following the expedition of the young Alexander, and then recalled his childhood and adolescence from the young Alexander. The boundaries of the three periods are Alexander's farewell to his mother and Alexander's death. The constant switching in the middle can be called the most in a historical film. I don't know if this counts as Stone's style, but I personally find it interesting.
The core of the whole film is those myths: Prometheus, Hercules, Jason, Oedipus, Achilles. In the film, the fates and traits of these heroes are mixed together to prophesically constitute Alexander's fate. In the order their father told in the cave, the parts they formed were:
in addition to these five, perhaps the image of the Titan should be added. In Philip II's description, this is a race that fought against the gods but was defeated. But after failing, some of them mixed the blood of the Titans with humans. According to this logic, human beings have the meaning of overthrowing the world of gods. Or to put it another way, it means not giving in to fate.
But as the most perfect image of a conqueror in history, Alexander's biopic must be composed of grand things, but in this film, the perspective is more flattened to examine him from his attributes as a human being. Focus on portraying his relationship with his father and mother. In this way, not to mention the theatrical version, even the director's version of 213 minutes is very short. The journey of the Eastern Expedition (the main line) as the glory of life and the memory as a foreshadowing and perfection are a bit messy and hasty. And the interaction between the father and son is very stiff, of course, this is also related to the director's change: in history, the relationship between Philip II, Olympias and Alexander was very chaotic, and Plutarch believed that the death of Philip II had a great relationship with Alexander. . Although the film is ultimately more faithful to the facts, it portrays Alexander as a pure young man who separates himself from his mother. Correspondingly, Philip II is depicted as a downright rough man (Philip II's style is indeed popular in history, but he is quite capable as a monarch). This can be very game conspiracy was passed so blandly, considering that Stone is also a very keen conspiracy theorist, this handling is not only unexpected, but also a pity. In addition, in the interaction of the three people in this family, I can't feel how much the father hates the son, nor how much the son likes the father. But the final result is that the father wants to abolish the son, but the son loves the father very much. The mother loves the son to death, but the son neglects the mother. In addition, the interaction between the three people is not only too long but also the rhythm is slow, making the rhythm of the whole film extremely strange. The result of this is: Alexander's personality is very complete, and his fate development has a strong logic, and even every action can be traced back to childhood influence (is it very psychological), but as a great conquest The biography of the author seems somewhat unnecessary.
Let's talk about the war aspect of the film: the film has two major battles, the Battle of Gaugamela and the Battle of the Sispiras River. Both of these battles are large-scale battles, and at the same time, the performance in a film is really generous. But unfortunately, the results of these two battles were not satisfactory. Gaugamela's rhythm is too fast, and the pre-war preparations are as anxious as a little virgin. In other words, this kind of battle can be presented in half an hour. During the battle, Alexander did not show superb skills, just a cavalry commando who was good at American speeches. Although the Macedonian phalanx is spectacular, it is still the protagonist team that is in the limelight. In the two hard battles, Alexander tried to go head-to-head with the opponent's main general. Isn't this too simple? Moreover, the image of the Persian camp as the enemy in this battle was very pale, and there were only a few mummy-like shots on the battlefield. Those who are familiar with world history will also know what the concept of the Persian Empire under Darius III was, and what Alexander won in this battle. So did the kingdom of Boraphas that followed, and their whole point was to inexplicably take on Alexander as a rival to the Savage East. In history, the king of Boraphas, Bolas, was a very interesting figure, and Alexander's battle with him was very interesting. When I watched these two battles, I just thought that Stone really couldn't make war movies. Now, it seems that the imbalance of the structure and the wrong choice of scenes are the faults of the whole film. As for the more macro part, I will not discuss it for the time being.
Another controversial point of the film is Alexander's gay (should be bisexual) plot. It is said that the Greeks were angry at the beginning of the film and wanted to kill Stone, but some people think that this is Stone's rigorous research on historical details. According to the photo, this homosexuality is not the meaning of homosexuality now. This can be explained from the scene in which Aristotle teaches the young Alexander. In his elaboration, the Greeks must strive to control their desires, "If two men share a bed for sexual desire is only a surrender to emotion", but if the exchange of knowledge and virtue is the exchange of knowledge and virtue in the same bed, then It is understandable and even commendable. Divided by such standards, the later between Alexander and his two same-sex lovers was indeed noble. But this standard itself seems to be a bit of a sophistry if it is judged according to the current values. But according to the customs of the time, homosexuality was no big deal. Moreover, Alexander has also gone through the process of getting married and having children, and he is not obsessed with male sex, so it is not a big problem. On the contrary, the film used too much space to present the suspicion of hype.
In addition, let's talk about the soundtrack, the album has already been thoroughly heard before watching the film. Presumably because Alexander is a national hero of his own country, Vangelis' album is very hard. As the main melody, TITANS is heroic and ETERNAL ALEXANDER is very suitable as an ode and commemorative song for a generation of geniuses. Several themes of mother, wife, and lover are also very good, especially Julie's appearance - as the image of the snake - ACROSS THE MOUNTIAN and THE DRUMS OF GAUGAMELA as the background music are also very majestic. When I listened to them, I felt that these songs were very situational and visual. But in the film, except THE DRUMS OF GAUGAMELA, which is the background of the war, is presented completely, other music is cut off. I thought that TITANS would accompany the scene of the young Alexander taming the fierce horse, ACROSS THE MOUNTIAN would accompany the snowstorm of the Hindu Kush Mountains, and ETERNAL ALEXANDER was the eulogy of the conqueror slowly spoken under the setting sun of the sea, but all this is not presented. It's just that at the end of the film, TITANS, ETERNAL ALEXANDER, and ACROSS THE MOUNTIAN are used as END TITLE, and they are all cut, and only the most "obvious" one is used. This is really a microcosm of the failure of the whole film.
View more about Alexander reviews
