Braindroppings

« Keywords of My Life | Main | SideBloggy »

December 09, 2004

Alexander

Okay, I think it is time I review Alexander, the movie, here. I think if you know me, you have already gotten part of the review: if it is entertainment alone, it is a movie, if it means something, it is a film.

I have to say that I entered the theatre with a negative attitude. Someone had told me that Iranians in the movie speak Arabic (which was not true), and I thought if true, this is the biggest historical mistake anyone has made in the history of Historical Epic movie making! I also didn't expect a Hollywood movie to be flattering towards Iran.

I am glad to say that I did not find it as terrible as I thought! Once you got over the fact that the film has abdolutely no historical merit, it was actually a pretty good and entertaining film. Oliver Stone was apparently interested in showing us the human side of Alexander and his state-of-mind (or what Mr. Stone thinks was his state-of-mind, mainly him being homosexual) and he does it pretty well.

I guess the movie makes it clear that it has no interest in showing history when it brushes over critical parts such as the conquest of Asia Minor, Battle of Isus, Conquest of Cilicia, siege and destruction of Tyre (Alexander's biggest mistake) and the conquest of Egypt, and instead, jumps directly to the battle of Gaugamela. After that point, I did not think of the Alexander in the movie as Aleksander Macedonios, rather just a chap named Alexander.

The battle of Gaugamela was well designed and executed, and although the use of computer graphics abounds in today's Hollywood, in this film, it was used nicely and to good effect. The attempt at recreating the famous Mosaic of Pompeii (Darius looking over his shoulder at Alexander) was fun and funny! Reminded me of Uderzo's funny recreation of the Raft of Medusa in one of the Asterix books!

Now, the good part, mainly the mistakes in presenting the Iranian side. First of all, why are the Achaemenid soldiers (whether you like it or not, the most advanced soldiers of the time) all look like Beduin Arabs and are fighting on the back of the camels? Have Mr. Stone not heard of the Aryans bringing horses story and all? Generally, all the Iranians looked so much like the Arab armies in Lawrence of Arabia! There were cute attempts to remake the Persepolis wall-carvings though: the costume of Darius III was copied from one of the soldiers in the Persepolis main stairway.

The funniest, and stupidest, part was Alexander's marriage to Roxane who supposedly was an Achaemenid princess. This part is confusing: first of all, they marry in Sogdiana (Central Asia). In the movie, people of this region look Mongolian or black! Funnier even, the "princess" is introduced to Alexander when she dances erotically for him along with other dancing girls. I doubt if this is how the princesses introduced themselves at the time! But, the FUNNIEST part, wait for it, is that the "princess" is of the African descent! Yes, the actress who plays Roxane, although very beautiful, certainly has her blood-line back in West Africa, not Central Asia! This part left me dumb-founded!

Alexander and his soldiers have an odd way of speaking with a Scottish accent, and they are also all blond! More interesting even is the fact that like the Scots in Braveheart, they shout when they are attacking. Generally, the whole fight scene seems to have been inspired by Mel Gibson's film.

Also, in the 'prep-talk' that Alexander gives before the Battle of Gaugamela, he says something to the effect of "Persians (sic.) are fighting because they are forced to, but you (Macedonians) are fighting for the freedom of your homeland." Odd, isn't it, when you think that Gaugamela is located in Mesopotamia, which is the homeland of those "Persians" and certainly not the Macdedonians! The speech was very "neo-con" in my opinion, as were many other parts of the movie (all conquests were liberation).

Matters such as Alexander's looting of the Susa treasury, destruction of Tyre (which destroyed the Phoenician commercial empire) and his burning of the Persepolis Palace Complex was left unmentioned in the film. I am sure that if Hollywood makes a film about Xerxes, it would not omit the scene of the burning of Acropolis. I can imagine sad music and sensational scenes of burning of the Greek arts. Apparently, the "oriental" art of Persepolis (which gigantic, gold adorned status and all) is not worth comparing with the 'superior' art of Greek and can be just ignored. Well, you can go and see and judge for yourself.

Come to think of it, the term 'barbarian' and 'inferior eastern culture' was used many a times in the film. Maybe they are just trying to show the point of view of the ancients? Optimistically yes, but even the ancients didn't fail to mention that Alexander burned Persepolis and his soldiers looted Persepolis and Susa and could not even carry away all of the wealth they found there.

All in all, the movie was so historically inaccurate and insignificant that one would start to turn off the critical part of one's mind and just look at the film as another Hollywood epic. Anyway, it was better than Troy!

Posted by Khodadad at December 9, 2004 05:34 PM

Comments

Posted by: Jamak at December 9, 2004 07:23 PM

Posted by: WhoMan at December 9, 2004 08:39 PM

Posted by: Faramin at December 10, 2004 05:26 PM

Posted by: Jamak at December 11, 2004 06:42 PM

Posted by: David at December 12, 2004 09:39 PM