Ancient History

Previously: al Iskandar to Kandahar

So having finished a novel about his campaigns (and revisiting some other sources along the way) I decided to re-watch Oliver Stone's version of the story of Alexander. I remembered it as awful, but wanted to give it a second chance, partly because historical details were fresh in my mind, and partly in response to an urge to see some of those details brought to life.

The movie was every bit as bad as I remembered. And that's a shame - with one of the greatest known stories in the history of civilization as foundation, Stone failed utterly to to craft a film version worthy of even faint praise. It's not in historical accuracy that the movie disappoints - at least for a viewer who doesn't expect Hollywood versions to sacrifice entertainment value for documentary credibility. It's not the actors - they're first rate - and certainly not the budget, the locations, the costumes, or the musical score where the film falls short. It's the script and the direction that prevent this movie from ever making a top ten list (or top one hundred, for that matter), be it of war movies, historical dramas, biographies, epics, or what have you. And when the credits role, Stone's name is listed for both.

Alexander is one of those films that as you watch you can almost hear the director calling the shots in every scene; "stand this way, look that way, tilt your head, assume this expression... pan left, zoom, bring up the violins..." It's pervasive, and the recognition of technique destroys any hope of being absorbed into the story.

As for the story, it fails utterly to explain how its star could possibly have conquered the world. This fault lies not with Colin Farrell in the title role but has everything to do with a script whose author lacks familiarity with the fundamental qualities of a charismatic leader - one who could inspire tens of thousands to advance across a continent, soldiering on even after their earlier successes brought them riches beyond dream, and with visions of comrades maimed and killed along the way still fresh in their minds. Inspirational leadership is but one element of Alexander the mytho-historical figure, but it's key. It's certainly fodder for one element of an epic film (to say the least) but it's one Stone fails utterly to deliver. "His" Alexander is a character upon whose death the rare viewer who somehow managed to press on to the final frame thinks only "good, this is almost done".

Perhaps it's a masochistic streak, but I can't stop wondering why, or in this case, "what the hell was he thinking? So I turned on the director's commentary and started watching it again. I didn't get far. I didn't need to.

After a quick clip of Alexander on his death bed we cut to Egypt, the city of Alexandria, a few decades after that brief first scene. We are in the Great Library listening to a distinguished elderly gentleman relate his experiences with Alexander. This, Stone informs us in his voiceover, is someone called "Pahtallemy". (Throughout the film the actors repeatedly do pronounce his name correctly.) Stone's mangling is a minor irritant, except that within moments "Pahtallemy" is depicted standing before a map of the known world with place names in English in a "Greek" font (all good, it's a movie) as Stone informs us that modern audiences have difficulty with Greek names. They are "tough for a lot of people."

Within moments we cut to flashback. Stone tells us that originally the captions for these scene changes gave the dates based on our modern system, but he changed them to read "30 years earlier" because American audiences (and he singles out Americans for this distinction) weren't astute enough to understand that a jump from 320 BC to 350 BC was a move back in time. (Stone fails to mention it, but the fact that the younger actor playing "Pahtallemy" looks nothing whatsoever like the older version doesn't help.)

So that's one question partially answered - much of what is wrong with this movie can be traced to Stone's perception of what's wrong with Americans. In short: they are stupid - he reinforces the point repeatedly in the early part of his commentary. (I've never seen the later part, my questions were answered well enough early on and I'm not that much of a masochist.)

Oliver Stone does not like George Bush. He does not support the war in Iraq. This I know and don't care. His politics (unless one argues that a professed belief in the ignorance of one's fellow American's is political) aren't obvious in the film. But I expected him to reference modern events in his commentary, so it didn't surprise me when he did. If anything, the only reference I heard to George Bush and the War on Terror was a bit more circumspect than I anticipated - albeit in a context that was entirely wrong.

Alexander was a superior leader to George Bush, Stone very briefly explains, because he pressed on with just one war rather than starting another while it was in progress. Hell, he could have called George Bush Chimpy McHitlerBurton and I'd have ignored it considering the source - but coming from the guy who wrote and directed a big-budget picture on the life of Alexander the Great this statement was the last I needed to hear to close the book on why the result falls so short of anything approaching justice to the name (and why "the Great" was wisely left off the final title of the film).

Ignoring President Bush, there are compelling reasons why the comparison fails, why Stone is wrong. Alexander split his forces as required to accomplish his goals, fighting "insurgents" in one direction while expanding territory in another. He re-formed for major pushes eastward - each of which could be considered launching a new war without completing another. If that's an inaccurate description of his earliest conquests it's certainly true of everything beyond Ecbatana. Alexander's campaign across Persia into south Asia is the classic example of overreach. It was little more than a raid across a massive amount of territory. His "empire" as we see it on maps today never truly existed, and whatever nascent identification with or loyalty to king or country he left in place faded almost as swiftly as the sound of Bucephalus' hoofbeats in the East.

Even his home nation of Macedon faded almost immediately into historical obscurity (even Stone repeatedly refers to Alexander as "Greek") and any semblance of unity or Empire that existed beyond its borders certainly didn't last beyond his final heart beat. And while his successors carved manageable chunks of personal empire from their previously raided territories they expedited their downfall by promptly declaring war on one another, and their nations vanished from east to west.

This is not to deny the greatness of Alexander or dismiss the lasting influence of Greek culture on much of the conquered regions. But imagine for a moment the resulting history of the world had he stopped at Ecbatana - with the western Persian Empire in hand, Darius dead, and a raiding party dispatched to finish Bessus. What if, at that point, he had been content to abandon his (unobtainable) goal of reaching an Eastern sea that was far beyond the point he believed it to be - both in terms of geography and capability of men to alternately march and make war? Certainly the maps of his "empire" we see today might seem less impressive - but arguably he'd have carved one that could potentially be sustained beyond his brief life (which might not have been so brief were that the case).

That's one of history's great what ifs. Would that empire have weakened enough for Rome to rise to challenge two centuries later? Or might Alexander or a successor turned his eyes westward after consolidating his eastern gains, making Rome another outpost along the way...

And what other great moments in history might we imagine would have been different under the more tolerant rule of the Greeks? Certainly our calendars might reflect a year other than 2009 - perhaps that same date would appear on calendars in Baghdad and Tehran (or Babylon and Susa, or whatever cities may have risen in the intervening centuries) too.

Perhaps those calendars wouldn't have a day designated "Easter"...

Next: Easter, '06