THE GREAT 'ALEXANDER'

Oliver Stone, whose new film ALEXANDER has been universally derided by American critics, was on a promotional tour in Europe this week, where he stated that one of the reasons for the lack of success back home was that Americans did not know their history as well as the Europeans did.

It sounded like a pretty feeble defense -- until I watched ALEXANDER, and loved it, and realized that Stone is right.

ALEXANDER is pure Oliver Stone -- melodramatic and forceful and over-the-top and the opposite of subtle. If you hate Oliver Stone, you'll probably hate this film.

I'm no Alexander the Great expert. I just finished reading one book on the guy (by Robin Fox, who was Stone's advisor), but it gave me a sense of the man and the context to understand the world in which he lived.

Almost all of other people's criticisms of the movie are attributes to me -- the narration by Anthony Hopkins, the episodic nature of the script, the emotional anguish of Alexander.

Particularly that last point. A lot of critics have stated that Colin Farrell does nothing but weep and moan throughout the movie.

All very true. But let's look. Let's look at what made Alexander particularly revolutionary. He agonized over his troops deaths'. He praised them before battle. He respected his defeated adversaries. He actually cried over his men. This is all historically accurate. This is what helped build the Alexander legacy. And this is what Stone gets chided for.

What Stone does, brilliantly, I think, is illuminate a period of history that will be little understood by those who watch the film if they don't have some basic knowledge of what events of that time were like. Is it Stone's responsibility to provide that context?

Well, yes and no. He does offer some historical information to set the scene, but how much can you give in a movie like this? I saw J.F.K. when I was sixteen, and I'd say sixty percent of the sixties' social context depicted in the flick went right over my head like a missle. Didn't affect my enjoyment of the film.

The difference here, I think, is that this is a story set long, long ago, before Christ. It deals with social customs and political ideals that are substantially different than what we now know. It's a time and an era that he has brought to life splendidly well, but I don't think a lot of people will have the patience or interest to sit through it, unfortunately -- it will seem baroque, unwieldy, sometimes silly.

All very well and good, but how is it as a movie?

This is my take on it. The film is called Alexander -- not 'Alexander the Great'. I think that's key. The Alexander from myth and history remains just that -- mythic. Somewhat ethereal. Not quite real. Stone has gone back and tried to imagine, conceptualize, depict, what it would be like for Alexander, himself, to come of age with his burden and his destiny. Stone depicts the boy and the man inside of the myth -- the tears and the rage and the confusion and the bloodlust. What would it be like to be considered the son of Zeus and the son of the most powerful man in the world? What would that do to you? Stone goes inside of the myth to try to bring forth Alexander.

If people don't like the film, fine. That's their perogative. But to see the joy that most critics' feel in dismissing a work that, for me, overflows with adolescent guts and passion and energy and grace is more than sad; it's debilitating. It smacks of cynicism and snarkiness and everything vile that growing old represents. Much of Alexander's life, and this film, focuses on the inevitability of glory's death, the long, inescapable fall that follows all those who seek to soar higher than the rest.

Perhaps, to some, this film is an example of that -- Stone's hubris expanded one last and final (?) time.

Not for me. For me, this film is an example of epic thinking. I think it has bravado and heart. It is long and slow, melodramatic and bloody. It dares to depict simple, primal thoughts. It beats with the heart of young dreamers. In its grandiosity, it practically invites the scorn it has received.

Let people scorn. The irony, I think, is that the young, who know very little about the present, let alone the past, will this film, and be intrigued, mystified, perplexed. They will want to know more about this strange man named Alexander. They will search the net, go to the library, explore. Somewhere in the world, a twelve or thirteen or fifteen year old boy or girl, just beginning to think of concepts like destiny and adventure, power and ambition, will see this film, and be enthralled, and marvel at one whose ambition knew no bounds, and whose desire, in all its multifaceted glory, had no territory or limits. They will, perhaps, wonder about those same qualities in themselves.

This film is for the young and the dreamers.