Alexander the Great

Rating:
Summary: Highly Recommended On All Levels
Review: Great entertainment and historically correct, for the most part. Richard Burton plays a convincing Alexander. From the start, with the background on Alexander's youth and his relationship with his father Philip and mother Olympias, the movie awesomely captures history. The battle scenes are recreated very well. I especially liked the post-battle scene at Chaeronea with the drunken Philip's singing echoing through the valley. Only minor errors, such as Darius's daughter being called Roxanne (a Bactrian princess) instead of Statira, can easily be overlooked. Alexander in fact, married both women anyway. The Persians are also shown historically correct for the most part, especially Darius' murder and the scene at Persepolis. For an under two-hour movie, what you get is quite spectacular. Of course, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reduce to film everything in Alexander's life.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: Robert Rossen 1950's attempt at writing and directing a film on a character as intriguing and dynamic as Alexander The Great falls flat. The subject itself calls for only the most devoted and skilled masters of film which Rossen was not for purposes of this genre.

Because Alexander The Great accomplished so much within only 13 years of his 33 years of life, it is virtually impossible to make a good movie on that part alone in less than 3 hours. Richard Burton delivers a strong performance as Alexander but also seems too constrained; Butrton fails to deliver the youthful vigor of which Alexander had so much of. Not only was Alexander a king and conqueror, he was a military genius; a philosopher; a bold explorer; and, in his own mind anyway, a god among mortal men. Burton's performance often seems too grave and reserved and fails to reflect Alexander's dynamic personality.

I did like the movie for its focus on Alexander's childhood but that also came short. It seems that, other than for biblical movies, the 1950s and early 1960s was a really bad period for making films dealing with the classical pagan world. All such movies were inevitably constrained by prudish christian values that restricted what subjects such a movie could touch upon and limited the characters depicted. Although a military genius in his own right, Phillip was a debauche and drunkard whose bizzare sexual preferences shocked even his Greek neighbors. For example, after the battle of Charonea, Phillip II swaggered drunk around the corpses of the enemy and, lifting their heads as if seeking an audience, would yell for Demonsthenes (Athenian orator and staunch enemy of Phillip.) Olympias was a conspiring queen and pagan priestess whose incessant scheming were directed at both Alexander and/or Phillip at one point or another. Such characters were poorly presented due to a squeemish 50s audience: unfortunate.

The movie doesn't really cover the campaign or its battles very well either. Looking at the movie, one barely gets any view as to how Alexander refined his father's tactics of the Macedonian phalanx to its peak; a military tactic unmatched until it came against the more fluid ones of the Roman legions almost 200 years later. The same is true as to Alexander's great siege of Tyre in which he built a mile-long jetti into the sea to connect with the City's gates; his hard fought geurilla campaign against Darius' renegade satraps; or his victories against Porus' elephants in India. There are also gross inaccuracies in the film in that Roxanne wasn't Darius III's daughter.

I have heard that Oliver Stone with perhaps the help of Copola is completing a new film on Alexander the Great with Leonardo Di Caprio as Alexander: I look forward to seeing that. In the meantime, we can only look at where others have failed. Roughly paraphrasing Phillip II, I would tell viewers, "Seek a greater movie, for that which Rossen leaves you is too small for thee."

Rating:
Summary: A less than stellar 1956 epic film about Alexander the Great
Review: With films about Alexander the Great directed by Oliver Stone and Baz Luhrmann supposedly being released in 2004 and 2005 respectively, the 1956 film "Alexander the Great" from director Robert Rossen with Richard Burton in the title role is probably going to see renewed interest. However, despite providing a realistic portrayal of a historical legend and being one of the most historically faithful films about the ancient world ever to be made, there is something missing from this would be epic.

"Alexander the Great" was written, produced and directed by Rossen, who had won the Academy Award for "All the King's Men" (1949) and would be nominated gain for "The Hustler" (1961). All three films have in common the realistic portrait of a complex psychological figure. Burton plays Alexander as being both energetic and a visionary, with quicksilver changes in mood. Alexander is both idealistic and practical, intelligent but hot-tempered, courageous but shrewd. Although he conquers the Persian Empire while still basically a boy, this is a conqueror who suffers defeats and almost falls prey to becoming an Oriental potentate just like Darius (Harry Andrews), the Persian king he just conquered. This is a man who can kill a friend in a moment of anger while drunk and weep over the body.

The more you know about the historical Alexander the more impressed you are by the film's fidelity to what appears in Plutarch. Here is the Alexander who worshiped Achilles and loved Homer's "Iliad," who was taught by Aristotle, cut the Gordian knot, destroyed Persepolis, and died a young man at Babylon. The battles sequences, such as the battle at the river Granicus, run rather short, but are not all that bad. The problem is that for all the complexity of Alexander's character and the intensity of Burton's performance, there is no real sense of mission or accomplishment to his conquering the known world. We see what happened, but are curiously unaffected by the film's implicitly explanation for why he did it.

The rationale suggested by the film is found in Alexander's father, King Philip of Macedonia. Played by Fredric March, Philip has a memorable scene after the battle of Chaeronea against the united city-states of Greece when he gets drunk and mocks the Athenian orator Demosthenes for having called him a barbarian. When Philip is assassinated Alexander chases after the assassin and kills him, and even the most basic understanding of Freudian psychology tells us that the son will spend the rest of his life trying to impress his dead father.

In the end the explanation for conquering the world becomes the same as Sir Edmund Hillary's famous quote for why he climbed Mt. Everest. To wit, "Because it was there." When you are on top of the world, there is a certain logic to such a quip. But when the subject is conquering the known world starting with a relatively small kingdom north of Greece, the same idea seems rather hollow. Hopefully Stone and/or Luhrmann can come up with not only better explanations, but much better films.