First Oliver Stone travels to Turkey and apologises to the people for some of the overly brutal scenes in Midnight Express that showed the Turkish prison system and those who ran it in a very bad light, now he’s openly discussing what he should have done differently with Alexander.
Now, I haven’t seen it yet but the press and controversy about it has been quite strong, as we’ve shown here. Still, I can’t help but feel if I had gone so far and made such a film, and even defended it at great length in the open press, I wouldn’t now suddenly go back on that and talk about what was perceived to have been wrong with the movie and what I should have done differently. Stone has though, in an article from Variety for subscribers, copied in Rope of Silicon.
He opens with a statement which is very resigned and almost, if you’ll pardoned the expression, conquered statement:
“In some way,” Stone told Variety, “I failed to communicate his story properly to that audience. I still think it’s a beautiful movie, but Alexander deserved better than I gave him.”
Stone goes on to talk about the more controversial aspects of the story:
“They called him Alexander the Gay. That’s horribly discriminatory, but the film simply did not open in the South, in the Bible Belt. There was clear resistance to the homosexuality.
“If I could go back, I’d have put events in linear order and limited the voiceovers. I’d have gotten the film to 2√Ç¬Ω hours and taken out the homosexuality for the U.S. market and for countries sensitive to such things, like Korea or Greece. Kids weren’t comfortable with men who hugged, a king who cries and expresses tenderness,” Stone said.
That’s a lot of changes, and quite a change of direction from the previous statements of defense that have been issued before. I still don’t understand his change in direction, perhaps the humility is designed to try and raise audience figures abroad to recoup the cash invested. I find it hard to see Stone actually feeling this way considering his past movies and the criticism he’s faced before.
For me, none of this changes the fact that I will go and see it, merely for the fact it is an epic, oh okay then, and because of the controversy to date!
Great site Gabriele, and I agree 100%
Alexander was fantastic and unique. One really underrated film.
I am historian and devoting myself since about 20 years to Epic films concerning Ancient Times.
But with Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” I understood that I saw the FIRST REAL EPIC film in all the history of Epic films.
It is an excellent film for it doesn’t follow the Mainstream of Hollywood.
Because of the negative reactions to the film in all over the world, decided to devote an extended Homage to Stone’s “Alexander” and to introduce this page later in my hostorical Homepage.
Gabriele Pasch
http://www.Messala.de
I got one sentence why this movie is garbage. Never ever evevevever put Colin Farell and Angelina Jolie in a Epic.
I couldn’t care less if the movie depicted him as straight, gay, or bisexual. Who cares? The problem is that the subject, much like others (familial relations, friendships, etc.) were handled with something more akin to melodrama than drama itself. Stone’s Alexander doesn’t come off as conflicted–he comes off as whiner. His sexuality, something normal for those days, is instead beaten over the audience’s head, over and over. Worst still, in his effort to get you to acknowledge something so freaking historically obvious, Stone chooses to devote time in a pointless dance scene featuring a eunuch not even historically confirmed when he could have been showing us history-making or legendary events like…
1) The Battles of Issus or Granicus, anyone? Any of the major battles could serve as chapter-markers for narration to follow, etc. Or, even more fitting for showing his diverse character..
2) The siege an devastation of Gaza, where his trademark chivalrous treatment of foes was replaced by wholesale slaughter.
3) His coronation and apotheosis as Pharaoh, and subsequent pilgrimage to Siwah; his growing declarations of godly lineage.
All those things could have been used instead of Bagoas’ pointless dance, or instead of the silly “love scene” between Farrel and Dawson, or instead of one of many “crying scenes”. Or, hell, since Stone had us in for damn near three hours, he could have also included any one of these three scenes and wowed us with something that made history…
For those wanting to dismiss Americans as a bigoted audience, guess what: while a lot of us are, indeed, wrongfully bigoted Stone knew what he was making and he knew the US audience was intended to be his primary money audience. He knew that Americans wanted to see Alexander the Great, conqueror of the known world. Otherwise, why did he market the movie the way he did? Why ease up on risque material in the previews? And why now turn about and act as if your audience betrayed you?
I think the reason the move flopped was that it it fell in the cultural gap that divides the red and blue states. That is, I think there are many people who would not ever consider going to a film that even hinted at a homosexual them (well, at least explicitly in the text anyway a la “The Fast and the Furious”). On the other hand, when I heard that the more explicit gay scenes had been cut without a similiar editing of the heterosexual ones, I decided to wait for the director’s cut. Unfortunately, I heard that the DVD will be even more edited, so I don’t think I will watch that one either. I think there were probably many others who thoughts are along the same lines. Really, given the present culture wars there is no way the film could have succeeded. Either by the deletion or inclusion of certain facts of Alexander’s life, someone would have been offended.
There was just too much narration, instead of “telling” us that he did this, (which we could get from reading history books and doing a Google search, why didnt they just “show” us in the movie?
I thought it was a brilliant film. Historical knowledge of Alexander’s life helps, and I applaud Oliver Stone for challenging the audience to know more. Ptolomey as narrator in his old age is accurate because his memoirs, written in old age, are the major source for Alexander’s life. The Oblique Manuever at the Battle of Gaugamela, the bird’s eye view illustrating the Macedonian military superiority (highly organized and disiplined against disorganized), the taming of Bucephalus, the “He too is Alexander” scene. I thought it captured well one of the most amazing figures of all time. Alexander was brilliant, visionary, emotional, cruel or generous when necessary, decisive, brave to the point of recklessness, driven, exceptional and gay. 3 hours was not too long, only a much longer film could capture more of the incredible march and campaigns of Alexander’s army. In my book, it was a superior film, one of the best of the year.
“Ahhh America! What a great country.”
You know what the rest of the world has come to realize? You guys are displaying yourselves as retards fallen in love with religion.
Wake up!
– And if someone chooses not to go to the cinema to see Alexander cos he was gay. Then, well.. You’re not worthy of seeing Alexander anyway and definitely not capable of understanding half of what is going on anyway.
For my part, I like to see movies that challenges the viewer to pay attention. Great work by Stone!
It was released in the UK yesterday and just came back from the cinema tonight.
I have to agree with Mr. Stone, and to quote his very own words, “Alexander deserved better than I gave him.” I think it was awfully done. I have no comments with the performances, I thought Farrell truly shone in this movie and showed us what he can do, and Jolie and Kilmer were equally brilliant, but it wasnt enough to save the film.
I came in without any expectations, for the last couple of weeks I have been bombarded with bad reviews of this film left, right and center but I didnt allow that to get in the way of my enjoyment of the film. I wanted to like it but I find it very hard to.
Anyway, maybe they will come up with another Alexander movie, perhaps in 10-20 years time, but this time will somebody who would dare better get it right.
Among his comments: shorten it to 2 ¬Ω hours; put the events in linear order; reduce the amount of voice-over narration (by Anthony Hopkins.) I agree that all three of those changes would have improved the film, particularly getting rid of the narration. However, the basic problem of trying to cover too much material in the (now reduced) 2 ¬Ω hours would remain ‚Äì he didn‚Äôt mention reducing the scope of the film to just one campaign ‚Äì my suggestion. He also said that he would cut a special version of Alexander for places like the U.S., Greece and Korea ‚Äì without the gay-sex element. That would divide the film into two films — significantly different portraits of Alexander the Great. When he decided to inject homosexuality into the script, he had to know that he was playing with fire ‚Äì I‚Äôm convinced that he did it deliberately, anticipating the controversy — aka free publicity ‚Äì that would follow. Now he seems to want it both ways: he‚Äôll take all the media attention but complains when they, the press, dwell on the controversial issue that he knowingly inserted.
Stone’s a whiner and a lunatic idealog. Unfortunately, he will continue to make gobbs of money (but not with my pocket) in spite of who he is and what he represents.
Ahhh America! What a great country.
Maybe he should do “gay” and “non-gay” DVD release versions. Problem solved.
Joking aside, the problem with Stone’s directing style lately is the final edit of his movies. It’s all rapid-cutting, disorienting, and the footage is depicted in very harsh contrasts. His movies have become literally difficult to watch. The writing and acting, for the most part, are excellent. But Stone ruins it all in post production. WTF is wrong with him?
Don’t care about the society. Care about the art.
Society should never affect the art itself.
So, I do care about good movies. I see Alexander as a movie, and I can communicate with that. The movie has a lot of things to say to me, and that’s cool
Sorry tou didn’t have this connection. Anyway, this is not Stone’s fault
So you’d rather see a film that doesn’t attempt to shed light on his true life?
Wouldn’t it just be better to make a film about different subject matter if you’re so afraid of any sort of homosexual themes being explored in the film?
It’s really disconcerting how ridiculously childish so much of the world is proving itself to be when I hear about the response to this film. Millions of people paid to see a film about one man being brutally tortured for 2 hours. It was completely disturbing and essentially a snuff film. But that’s okay, cause it’s religious and all that jazz.
HOWEVER if you put two men showing affection towards each other in a film, well now – that is just disgusting. Hell, I think maybe they’re trying to say homosexuality is an okay thing and acceptable in society. Can you believe that? That’s just outrageous! I mean, I don’t care if they do it behind closed doors but why do they have to be seen in public?
Such a sad testament to how far we haven’t come as a society.
There’s another director for a new Alexander film?, I would like to see the great conqueror Alexander instead of a young gay boy.
There are plenty of things wrong with the film, most of which I’d say could be defended, but the non-chronological telling of it is just loopy. I’ll not go into too much detail here because it’s not been released in the UK but at one point, Stone shows HALF of a formative event in Alexander’s young life, then only gives us the other half just before the end. This from the man who made JFK – I was astonished.