Alexander the Great

Now, we shouldn't look to Rossen's film for actual history, EXCEPT as reflected in later romance and, indeed, the Alexander legend. The film does indeed egregiously telescope events and make a complete chronological, genealogical and motivational muddle of real historical events. Absolute realism is not the point of the film, however -- Hollywood is guilty of much simplistic remaking of history, but Rossen's film is much more personal and ambitious in grand design if not in little details -- the portrait of Alexander as a man, brilliantly realized on many levels by Richard Burton, is the real focus of the movie. What we have here is a portrait of the disintegration of the character of a promising, ambitious young man, intoxicated with power and the lies accompanying that, and the formative power that the strong personalities of his parents, Olympias and Philip, had over Alex's mind.

For this last reason, I find the first half of the film to be superbly done. His stimulating contact with Aristotle, the camaraderie between him and his companions, and especially his complex relationships with Olympias and Philip are brought out beautifully (if necessarily briefly), by Burton, in the film. (Most of this is derived from the late Greek biographer Plutarch's "Life of Alexander".) Burton plays the young Alexander beautifully, full of emotional ambiguities and hidden resentments. The murder of Attalus after the assassination of Philip is not only presented as the first of Alexander's blood crimes, but as a necessary consequent of his upbringing, as abetted and encouraged by his amazing, monstrous mother. The rest of his career is presented not only as a continuation (and surpassing!) of his father's ambitions, but as a fulfillment of Olympias' own expectations for her son. The psychological complexity here is exquisite, and appropriate.

This fine beginning makes the rest of the film redundant and annoying. We, of course, expect a good exposition of Alex's adult achievements, but Rossen is frustrated at being tied to history here (mostly derived from the ancient historians Arrian and Diodorus), and we are treated to a perfunctory, lazy account of all of his victorious battles and conquests. (For instance, the battles of Ipsus and Gaugamela are conflated into one encounter, and the degeneration of Alex into a paranoid alcoholic is too broadly played.) The usual "cast of thousands" used in the battle scenes are not convincing, and we do not feel that the fates of nations and peoples hang in the balance. We are not granted any glimpse of Alex's genius at tactics and generalship. Darius is a mere cipher, not a convincing King and opponent. Only Peter Cushing as Memnon gives us a spark of convincing opposition to Alexander's tyranny, and he refreshingly reminds us that not all Greeks responded to Alex's call for a "Panhellenic" crusade against Persia. (In historical fact, more Greeks, in all probability, fought AGAINST Alexander than for him!) Memnon's death at the battle at the Granicus is also an unhistorical invention; he died of disease a year or so later, after leading the increasingly successful resistance to Alex in western Asia Minor. His wife Barsine was certainly a captive to Alexander, and probably bore him a son as well, but this fact is blown up far too much in the film. The real Alexander's emotional attachments were homosexual (to Bagoas, Hephaestion, Cleitus, et al.).

In short, the first half of the film is well realized and acute, while the second half is confused, hurried and unsatisfying. We understand much about Alex from the family drama in the first part; we understand little about him from the second. Rossen certainly had limitations in telling this story; if he had a larger budget and less (at the time) conventional restrictions on telling a story, then we would have had a different and better (and much longer!) movie. The golden age of the epic film may well be past, but I think that it can still be told. Consider this review as a challenge: this story can be told, well, and at length, with all the richness and complexity of the real, without sacrificing drama and immediate interest. This is certainly one of the most fascinating stories of recorded history, and it is a shame that Rossen was unable to complete what he had so brilliantly begun.

Though not historically accurate you could say this film is based on Alexandre the Great's impressive figure. The point is that it has some important flaws the demerit the product.

First of all Richard Burton was not the actor to play Alexandre though not for his undoubted acting ability but because he was too old. In fact, he was almost the same age the Macedonian hero was when he died, and it shows clearly (even more when the picture takes his life when he was just an adolescent). Secondly, the film is too slow with lots of talk and little action, but Alexander was mainly a man of action. And finally, the not abundant action sequences lack spectacle and strength, even for the middle 50's. So it appears to me that director Robert Rossen either missed the correct focus to tell this story or got too tight to an erroneously focused script.

However the film might be entertaining for those who like epic films and/or are interested in the historical figure (like me) and has some good moments, good color photography, a fine and adequate musical score and a strong supporting cast.

Frederic March does a good job as Philipus II "the Barbarian", Alexander's father, who created the invincible Macedonian "falange" that was so very well used by his son at war. Danielle Darrieux plays Alexander's ambitious and confronting mother and there are fine performances too by Peter Cushing, Stanley Baker, Helmut Dantine and the always reliable Harry Andrews as Persian king Darius.

Just for a look every once in a while, but no too often.

I borrowed this movie with one intent, and that is to see how the subject material was handled in the 50s, compared to the most recent interpretation by Oliver Stone, who gave us an Alexander with Colin Farrell complete with his hair dyed blonde. And while I was lamenting the fact that there were only 2 war scenes on a massive scale included in that version, the hype that surrounded the story of a conqueror seemed to have made way for Stone's very queer depiction on the bisexuality of Alexander, especially with the camera adopting his POV and gazing ever so lovingly at the male species, countless of times until you want to throw up. I guess subtle is never in Stone's books.

Now this version written and directed by Robert Rossen (who also gave us the original Hustler) did away with all that sexuality issues, and neither did it find any need to have gratuitous nudity in watching Alexander make love (in Stone's version, Rosario Dawson went nude in her role as Roxane). Then again it was made about 50 years ago. Anyway, what I found to be a major disappointment, were the battle scenes. Yes, it might be terribly dated by now, and sadly didn't survive the test of time. At certain scenes and angles, it's akin to old martial arts movies, where enemies just circle around you, waiting for their choreographed moves to be executed, or worse, if you pay attention to characters in the background, they surely aren't moving like ferocious warriors, choosing instead to mull around!

Also, we only get one major battle sequence in Alexander the Great, which made the foray into India in Stone's Alexander look like bonus material. In fact, this version took some time to establish key characters, and began with Alexander's father King Philip's (Fredric March) conquests first, interrupted by the birth of his son, and the prophetic signs under which he was born. It took almost 30 minutes before you see any semblance to a fight, and almost one hour before Richard Burton finally takes over the mantle and seeks out his destiny as one of the greatest known world conquerors of all time. However, the film felt like it was in two arcs, the first which dwells on the internal bickering within Greece with its many factions, and the plotting between mother Olympias (Danielle Darrieux) and King Philip, each wanting to win over Alexander's loyalty for their own political purpose. In this version though, which harped on Darrieux's appearance in the credits, I thought she made Angelina Jolie look more formidable in the role. At least Jolie was dripping with evilness and cunning, compared to the more subdued Darrieux.

The latter half dealt with Alexander's conquests through Asia, though most of the facts were glossed over. It was too little too late as most of which are told using montage, intertitles and narration, which made it look like a rush job to end it. While Stone's movie had focused a fair bit over Alexander's obsession with being the Son of God and his increasing obsession over himself and his glories, this version again made those themes look superbly examined in Stone's version. However, one thing's for certain, Richard Burton, even with the horribly blond hair which looked like a wig, was indeed a lot more charismatic and believable than Coliln Farrell. And that also meant when Burton was wearing the horrendous full faced helmet so that the stunt guy can take over!

All in all, a pretty decent effort in telling the story of Alexander the Great, however as mentioned, it didn't really stood up to the test of time.

I have always been fascinated by the short and violent life of Alexander of Macedonia, which of course makes me biased in reviewing this film. It has been said of this film that Robert Rossen, who produced, wrote and directed this film, was aiming for a masterpiece but failed honorably. While this is true in a way, I still enjoyed it more than that. This movie is not fast in pace, and the direction is not perfect either, but it feels authentic. I'm sure that not everything portrayed is true to history (does anyone really care?), but it is convincing, and the acting is solid. Richard Burton is a very good Alexander, and he adds a lot of subtle edges to this enigmatic figure from history (just ignore the silly blond wig...) All in all, Alexander the Great is a good film, perhaps too ambitious, and even though it is not very accessible to viewers not familiar with the territory, it is still quite dramatic, convincing and enjoyable if you like historical epics. And even though the film doesn't ask you to care too much about the characters, it is still an interesting, intellectual, and high minded story you probably will not forget. If you keep in mind that it is the events of history that are really on display here, and not so much the individual players, you may enjoy it as I did.

The dialogue accomplishes so much yet is almost poetic. It is of an elegance rarely seen in modern movies. Many of the key elements in the relationships between Alexander, his men, his parents and his perspectives are explored but battle details are glossed over.

Though far from comprehensive, it tells a good tale and serves as a wonderful introduction to the life of Alexander. I was riveted when I watched this, having read Mary Renault's trilogy. An excellent job!

Oliver Stone's 2004 effort was a let down but the depiction of the Battle of Gaugamela is worth watching.