Alexander was great! Especially on a slow news day

Yes it was.

Film critics around the world have slated the film for being camp, an ordeal, snivelling, puerile and a travesty. Understandably I didn’t want to go and see it but TOH dragged me to the UGC, and, after all, it is ‘free’ with our £10-a-month deal.

The Sub-Standard wrote: ‘It’s a cliché but it’s almost true – the bigger the budget, the worse the script. It never gets to grips with the psychology of a man who conquered most of the known world before he was 30.’

I’d have to disagree. Maybe Derek Malcolm was too busy trying to sharpen his pencil in the dark, or something, but Alex’s motivations were pretty plain to see: filling his father’s boots, fulfilling his mother’s dreams, believing in the heroic tales of Achilles, Patroclus and Prometheus, and that he was a divine son of Zeus. He also fervently believed in uniting nations so people could be free. He even highlighted his own generals’ racism by believing there was no difference between the sons of Macedonia and the ‘barbarians’ he conquered.

The Times wrote: ‘There was a point, somewhere around the middle of the second hour where I started to feel profoundly sorry for the people who put so much effort into this film.’

I’d have to disagree. The film looked beautiful – costumes, sets, hair, makeup, stunts, fight scenes etc etc etc, not to mention the multitude of people doing admin, running, driving etc (OK, I will mention one – my brother had a credit - Supervising plasterer in Morocco!)
All that effort supported a wholly convincing cast. Farrell did a pretty good job, terrible blond wig aside. Jolie was gorgeous. In fact, everyone was superb.




The only criticism I have, and it’s fairly superficial, is the many, many dodgy accents put on by the cast. All young Macedonians are either Irish or Scottish, it seems, while Jolie, as Alexander’s mother, sounded more like a Russian Bond baddie, all rolling arrs.

The Hate Mail wrote: ‘The diminutive Colin Farrell portrays Alexander as a snivelling hysteric who doesn’t get on with his parents. He’s not so much impressive imperial as pointlessly petulant, like Elton John throwing a series of hissy fits.’

I’d have to disagree, and go further and say that, as usual, this vile organ is talking bollocks.
Is Farrell a short arse? I wouldn’t have been able to tell from watching this film. I thought that he portrayed Alex as a human, and one who has a normal relationship with his parents, loving them completely, yet going through moments where he hates them. Is there anyone who has not told their parents they hate them as a teenager?

Snivelling hysteric? Noooo. He was a man who sends his troops into battle and is affected by their deaths and the things he sees. After all, it was his ambition that took these people so far from home and put them in mortal danger on battlefields.

Like Elton John? I don’t think so. Terrible hair aside, during the film Alex grows from a young boy to become ‘The Great’. Along the way he gains confidence and grows into his position as king and absolute ruler. And his does it very well. Farrell manages to portray him as a man with many facets – brave, macho, loving, petulant, ambitious, soft, playful, determined – something often lacking in Hollywood films (see Pitt’s Achilles in Troy).

The whole gay thing was handled properly – in those days, the boundaries of sexuality didn’t exist. He loved his childhood friend, he loved his wives, he took comfort where he wanted it. A bit like modern day monarchs! Men were for friendship, soldiering, camaraderie and sex, women were for having babies, being an anchor and having sex. What’s the problem?

He was also taught by Aristotle – a notorious male-centric philosopher, who in the film said the barbarians, Persians, were wrong because they laid with their brothers for pleasure and excess, whereas the noble Macedonians were right to lay with their brothers because it was for spiritual furtherment and honour.

Aristotle also showed the young Alexander a rather inaccurate map of the world, which, Mr Malcolm, might also go some what to explain why he was so hell-bent on going further and further – he seemed to think the Nile ran past the Hindu Kush and, if they could cross it, his army could sail straight back to the Med.

Therein lay the man’s ruin. He pushed his men too far, for too long, for seemingly no purpose.

Having never studied history, I think Stone has done a pretty good job bringing such an epic tale to life in a film lasting a couple of hours. I have no idea if classical scholars would agree but as a piece of entertainment it hit the mark. It was also quite thought provoking as it brings to mind many of the things which we face today, such as Bush’s determination to free people by bombing the shit out of them in the name of God.

There, that’s off my chest now. Please add your comments if you have seen the film, especially if you think I am talking out of my arse.