The Making Of Alexander

Rating:
Summary: Alexander IS Great!!
Review: Having come to this page and finding the single review below, I feel compelled to write one of my own.

I have always been interested in Alexander, a unique & enigmatic man who has never failed to engage, challenge, fascinate - and yes, rouse passions & create controversy - through the centuries and across cultures. I was not however, much interested in the movie initially. To me, Oliver Stone spelled `contemporary American pop culture',
far removed from `ancient Greek civilization'! I had never seen Colin Farrell in a movie but had seen snippets of
interviews on TV and to say that I wasn't impressed with what I saw, would be an understatement.

I did end up seeing the movie out of curiosity and I think I can guess why it hasn't been a box office hit. Had the filmmakers used Alexander's story to create a big budget Hollywood epic, full of glamour and fantasy and everything else that appeal to mass audiences in search of simplistic entertainment, it would have been a hit. Instead, they've done just the opposite - they have used the medium & technology of the film to interpret and dramatize Alexander. As such anyone with some interest and knowledge of Alexander would not fail to recognize the power and richness of the movie. And the more one has read and knows of Alexander, the more I think they would appreciate the beauty, the depth, the thought-provoking nuances....

The reason I found this book such a great read is that it gives you a wonderful insight into the entire process of the creation of the movie. It's written by Robin Lane Fox - an Oxford professor & the author of one of the most respected contemporary biographies of Alexander - who was involved with the film from early on. To me, reading about the long gestation of the script, the intellectual debates, historic analyses, personal visions etc. that went into the writing of it, was fascinating. Equally fascinating was Colin Farrell's comments on Alexander - some very
powerful stuff....which made me realize why his Alexander came across as so real! (Needless to say I now feel rather horrible about all my prior uncharitable thoughts!)

But there is a great deal more in the book that truly enhanced my appreciation and enjoyment of the film. Mr. Fox is an enthusiastic chronicler of all kinds of details - everything from casting, sets, costumes, boot camp, special effects to film financing headaches, Hollywood rivalries and on-set romances! There's also a lot of great color photographs of both the actors and the sets.

Rating:
Summary: There is nothing great about
Review: In the pantheon of the greatest human beings who ever lived, in terms of influencing the history of the world, Jesus Christ "ranks" number one and Alexander the Great ranks number two, for similar albeit different reasons. Both influenced history more than others, and died at essentially the same age, 33. Jesus changed man's relationship to God and thereby "conquered" much of the world, while Alexander's territorial conquests spread democracy and the assimilation of disparate cultures. Both were remarkable leaders who possessed super-human qualities, including wisdom and fearlessness.

In a sense, their lives were intertwined because the spread of Christianity as a world religion (owing to the Greek language), as well as the Roman Empire and the long centuries of Byzantium are all said to be the fruits of Alexander's achievements. As a general, Alexander (or Alexander III of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.) is considered to be among the greatest the world has ever known. He was recognized as pharaoh (or god incarnate) of Egypt; and his general Ptolemy founded the fabled Egyptian dynasty that ended with the death of Cleopatra (who was named for Alexander's full sister), the last of the Ptolemies. Alexander's wife, Roxane, is a story of love and alliances - and of their son, born posthumously.

It is sad, but totally predictable, that the epic tale of Alexander's life and deeds has been twisted by Oliver Stone, whose perversion of the topics he films is legendary. Why any movie studio finances this hack remains a mystery. One need know little or nothing about "Alexander," the movie, to realize that Stone would turn the great Alexander into a farcical Gay hero, or bisexual at best. Yet, there is no historical evidence that such was the case. At that time in history, bisexuality was present just as it is today; however, it was predictable before the first camera rolled that Stone would make such characteristics central to Alexander's character.

Also, it is clear that Stone miscast the leading actors in his film, and that it is disjointed and fails to depict any greatness at all. While the story of Alexander's life and accomplishments and place in history is a tale that surpasses David Lean's brilliant and timeless "Lawrence of Arabia," Stone is incapable of telling such a story or picking the actors to enrich the screen, much as the young Peter O'Toole played T.E. Lawrence magnificently. It is only too bad that Lean is not alive to do justice to such an epic; Stone is a rank amateur when compared to the greatness of Lean.

While due respect might be given to Stone's ability to raise the money in Hollywood (and abroad) for such a film -- where history is [...] on a daily basis -- "Alexander" was doomed from the moment when Stone was chosen by Warner Bros, because of his lack of talent, political biases, and inability to properly cast the film. He failed, where the true story of Alexander succeeded beyond one's wildest imagination. To read the history of Alexander's life is to realize that he surpassed the exploits of even his revered Greek gods. Yet, Stone lacks even a modicum of greatness as a moviemaker to depict one of the greatest figures and stories in history.

Robin Lane Fox, a fine British scholar of Alexander's life, served as an advisor to Stone and wrote this book, and made the mistake of associating his name with this debacle. Any serious scholar should have known immediately that Stone's reputation is tainted, which is certainly true of his films, and that any alliance with him would be the moral equivalent of selling one's soul to the worst that is Hollywood.

Some day the real story of Alexander's greatness will be told, with a cast that does justice to the epic, including some unknown actor playing Alexander as O'Toole played Lawrence, instead of the relative pygmies who dance on Stone's one-dimensional canvas. One can only assume that Fox was paid a king's ransom for participating in such a travesty. People were walking out on the movie in Los Angeles, and it would be a miracle if it earned even a fraction of its estimated $160 million cost.

The Toronto Star called it "not just a bad movie but a bad movie of truly epic proportions." Robin Lane Fox should have known better; however, perhaps the lure of Hollywood and its associated dollars proved too much for him to resist. At the least, his reputation is diminished by being associated with Stone and the making of "Alexander."

Rating:
Summary: Robin Lane Fox Behind the Scenes of "Alexander"
Review: Robin Lane Fox is among the best of our historical authorities on Alexander of Macedon along with Peter Green, W.L Adams, and a few others. As historical advisor to Oliver Stone and an action extra, he was in a unique position to offer diffinitive comments on the making of the epic film "Alexander" and his views are nicely presented in this handsome volume. Sadly, the film has been viewed as uneven by critics and the public with not a few questions about the portrayl of history. Fox concluded that the film is not history; it is cinema. And some critics should keep that in mind about certain dramatic techniques used in this film and its screenplay. This book is not simply an apology for all of this. It is a rare and interesting inside view of one of the most ambitious film projects of the new century. I too came away from the film a bit disappointed, but Robin Lane Fox's commentary convinced me that whatever the film's failures, it was not because of a lack of effort or good intention. Remarkably, as we learn here, the attention to detail in this project was generally right on, with only a few intentional lapses for the sake of story. Fox mixes his historical expertise with fascinating depictions of how an epic film is produced. The most interesting chapters deal with the training of action extras, and the preparation of the two major battle scences that actually helped answer certain historical questions about soldiers and warfare in ancient times. Alexander, the man, the warrior, the king, the visionary, remains a mystery through all of this. But Fox sheds some new light here. The volume includes a brief introduction by (and apparently autographed by) the director Oliver Stone.

Rating:
Summary: An Entertaining And Highly Detailed Account.
Review: Robin Lane Fox is not a name readily associated with Hollywood or movies. And yet the man has been seeked out by important filmmakers for years to help with projects based on the life Alexander The Great that eventually never left the starting line. This is just one of the fascinating facts we discover in Fox's "The Making Of Alexander," a book where Fox describes how Oliver Stone's epic came to be and how Fox was tagged on as not only a consultant, but also as one of the members of Alexander's cavalry (this is actually what Fox asked for in return for his services). Making Of books tend to read like CNN on the set, simple, straightforward accounts of how the script was written, how the actors were cast and what calamities and surprises took place during shooting. Fox's book contains all these, but with a special flavor because here we have an outsider to this world, an Oxford historian who's biggest thrill is riding horses and hunting in the winter who's suddenly called-up by a producer and asked to meet the notorious Oliver Stone and aid him in the details of Alexander's world. "The Making Of Alexander" is a creative adventure, a humorous look at moviemaking and a richly detailed history lesson on the conquests of Alexander and details of the Ancient Greek world. Fox writes with the fervor of someone who deeply cares about the subject, Stone's film is of great importance to him because it brings everything Fox writes and lectures about to the big screen. Stone's critics will be surprised to find that Fox considers Stone a true artist, a man who deeply cares about history and is fascinated by it and treats it will absolute respect in his movies. The book also clarifies how historical films may seem inaccurate, but that is only because a director is given about 2 or 3 hours to tell a story spanning numerous years and so material must be condensed or taken out. The details of how the movie's elaborate sets like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were constructed are fascinating and the passages where Fox describes charging with elephants and re-creating famous battles are exciting and touching considering we get the sense of Fox being a historian living out his dreams (Fox is the author of "Alexander The Great," often considered the best of the Alexander biographies). This is also a visually enticing book. The photos from the film and sets are excellent and give us a clear picture of how the movie was constructed. "The Making Of Alexander" even settles some questions long asked in the press, like, did Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie get it on? (They did).
"The Making Of Alexander" is an entertaining journey, an adventure of minds trying to compose a gigantic movie with what resources are available. It is the story of a historian suddenly finding himself in the roller coaster ride known as Oliver Stone and coming out alive to tell the tale.