alexander, director’s cut, even

watched this in two instalments at the end of the week. this is appallingly bad. so bad that it isn’t even fun to watch in order to make fun of its badness. whatever his faults as a filmmaker, you could always say of stone that he made compelling films. not anymore. or maybe this is what happens to compelling filmmakers when they get to make their pet projects (see also scorcese and the aviator). interesting and familiar political rhetoric: alexander is out to conquer the world because he wants to unify it, dissolve differences and make everyone free; unlike his generals and soldiers he alone has respect for the asian people (though curiously this does not get in the way of considering their practices and rulers barbaric). everybody deserves to be made free by force so that they can be more like us. the look of the film is equally tired. he seems to have taken many courses of orientalism 101–not the critique of it, but “how to”.

the actors are all staggeringly bad. rosario dawson got good reviews for her performance–i presume this is because she showed her breasts. not even a passing glimpse at his penis redeems farrell. jolie may be under the impression that she is chewing scenery in a fun way–she is not. the only one who is is val kilmer, and he may be the only one who emerges with his dignity intact. anthony hopkins plays anthony hopkins. someone should make a film with him and morgan freeman.

11 thoughts on “alexander, director’s cut, even”

  1. For what it’s worth The Aviator was not a pet project of Scorsese’s; Dicaprio developed it with Michael Mann before Mann dropped out after feeling burned by the less than stellar success of Ali. Scorsese stepped in and this is probably best referred to as one of his better “hired gun” efforts (The Color of Money and the wacky ambulance flick being two others).

  2. you’re right jeff. it was apparently dicaprio’s pet project. i think i was confusing it with “gangs of new york”–which i liked more than most active people here (sunhee and pete, who i saw it with in l.a, quite liked it too).

  3. This film is not as bad as Arnab says. It’s bad, but not appallingly bad. It does have its moments (and it should, given its length). Perhaps the two-installment approach is the problem. Get it over with in one viewing, I say.

    As for it’s racial politics, Stone handles the problem better than Arnab would care to admit. I think the film is more successful than not at demonstrating how Alexander’s flaw was his obsession with unity, and his disregard for solidarity. And it’s the latter that will free the peoples of the world, not the former. That said, I wouldn’t expect to see this film at the World Conference Against Racism.

    Once again, Arnab has proven he is much more interesting talking about films he likes.

    Who are the “active” people who do not like “Gangs”?

  4. john, you are right that alexander is critiqued by the film. but it is only for failing the macho (surprise, surprise in stone’s world) test of not listening to his buddies more. while his obsession with conquest is critiqued it is entirely in these terms, and i don’t think his vision is at all. the film very much sets up the death of alexander as a victory of the weak over the strong, of those with no world-view over someone with nothing but world-view. and ptolemy’s frame narrative very much endorses alexander’s view of “one world”. in other words, the unity/solidarity thing that you mention doesn’t really map onto the film’s political narrative–it is a good way to understand the film’s narrative of masculinity though.

    you watched this film in one instalment? you have a strong stomach. we weren’t even sure we wanted to finish it.

  5. I didn’t much like ‘Gangs.’ It was too overwrought, in scale, acting, passion. It was a throwback to big budget epics, not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but Scorsese seemed more concerned with the historical authenticity of the film than with developing a compelling story. If I want to see a tale of revenge, then ‘Oldboy,’ ‘Once upon a Time in the West’ or ‘Kill Bill’ are all much more interesting.

    But I should fess up that I don’t think I’ve liked DiCaprio in anything (and I can’t figure out why Scorsese keeps using him anymore than why Spielberg keeps using Cruise), and I haven’t liked a Scorsese movie since ‘New York Stories.’ Increasingly I find myself admiring his craft without enjoying his movies.

  6. DiCaprio–Gilbert Grape. The guy can coast for YEARS with me continuing to expect great things from him after that performance. That said, I also enjoyed Catch Me If You Can.

    And I liked Gangs, ‘though I pretty much disliked DiCaprio, despised Diaz, and thought the story was a muddle. But I STILL found it compelling, and not just because Day Lewis was a force of nature.

    Stone hasn’t made a good movie since Salvador.

  7. Johnny Depp made an impression on me in Gilbert Grape; DiCaprio not so much. The guy’s too cute. He makes me question my own sexuality, and I’m too old to be doing that. Speaking of which, I just watched bits of ‘In and Out’ again when it was on TV over the weekend. That had some funny moments, not the least of which was the audio tape program to enhance masculinity.

  8. Arnab, I’m not convinced. I still think you’re simplifying a bit. And I think this is a larger problem with “dismissive” posts. The unity/solidarity thing does map onto the film’s poltical narrative. And although the masculinity narrative does, from time to time, seem the dominant one, it often submerges as the political narrative dominates. It’s probably fairer to say that the two are on parallel tracks.

    Take for instance Alexander’s marriage to Roxane. His motivation ofr this “union” is entirely political: the “union” of a Macedonian and an Iranian was meant to bring about stability. It’s at this point in the film that the masculinity narrative is almost entirely subordinated. Sure, the men in Alexander’s army resent the marriage and the fact that their leader is willing to put the Iranians on the army payroll. He sacrifices solidarity within his own ranks for the sake of “union” with the Sogdians. But all this is a subplot, it’s in the background.

    Their marriage is strategic, and the film shows us that no matter how successful Alexander may be at unification, he will ultimately fail. The marriage means nothing. That ridiculous scene of their sexual “union” in the conjugal bed is portayed entirely as a ritual of conquest, of subdued and subduer. It’s still the same old bullshit: no differences have dissolved.

    I grant that this film is more than flawed, that it’s bad. But Stone is clearly doing more than critiquing Alexander for failing the macho test.

  9. Their marriage is strategic, and the film shows us that no matter how successful Alexander may be at unification, he will ultimately fail. The marriage means nothing. That ridiculous scene of their sexual “union” in the conjugal bed is portayed entirely as a ritual of conquest, of subdued and subduer. It’s still the same old bullshit: no differences have dissolved.

    the unification fails only because none of the other greeks will accept a non-macedonian queen/heir. yes, alexander is not listening to his buddies–this is his macho failing, but he rises above his buddies because what he wants is anachronistically what a modern liberal audience wants. stone is trying to do more than critique alexander’s failing the macho test. but that’s the only bit he does coherently. the political narrative is at best muddied and inconsistent–i think you’re giving it far too much credit.

    i really hope this discussion doesn’t cause more people to watch the movie.

  10. “Only” because none of the other Greeks will accept a non-macedonian queen? I think there’s more to it than that. For what it’s worth, I agree the film is at best muddied and inconsistent. I just thought it deserved a more thoughtful post than “appallingly bad.”

    As for the Morgan Freeman comment, I too laughed. But it’s not the first time we’ve slammed him (I think this came up in our discussion of “Ducks on Parade” or whatever that thing is).

    That Hopkins repeats himself has more to do with his general lack of interest in Hollywood. On more than one occasion he has said that he’s fed up and never wants to do another film (he made such an announcement after “Titus”). He just doesn’t care.

    But isn’t the fact that Freeman seems to play himself over and over again due in part to the near total lack of interesting roles for African Americans in mainstream Hollywood films? Krin Gabbard talks about this in his book (called “Black Magic”) and in this article:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0711/p13s02-almo.html

    I want to say that none of this should excuse Freeman for repeating himself, for playing the black angel again and again and again. He could turn down these roles (this is Spike Lee’s criticism of Samuel L. Jackson). But that doesn’t seem entirely fair to me.

    It’s not just Freeman. As Dylan says, “he’s only a pawn in their game.”

    Speaking of which, I really enjoyed Scorsese’s “No Direction Home,” but I have to say I am puzzled by Netflix’s description. This is a documentary in two parts. Where’s Part 2? Is it on Disc 2? If so, why don’t they say so? (the description says that the bonus materials are on disc 2)

Leave a Reply