Inspired by Steve's musings on the state of the awards for 2004, I have, on consideration, conceived a degree of righteous indignation for the treatment of Alexander by the Razzies. It would seem its financial woes, rather than any objective opinion of the quality of the film, has led to it rather sweeping the board in terms of nominations, most notably in all acting categories (as well as director). In this age of independent film, whose battle-cry has always been the disavowal of box-office figures, I can't help feeling daggers were drawn against Oliver Stone and his studio-scale movie hamstrung before it had any chance to prove itself. Now impoverished and helpless, the vultures are circling, their skepticism self-fulfilled. Almost every person in our 300-strong Myth lecture had seen Troy, but only 3 out of the 50 students I have for discussion section had also seen Alexander. Why? Can the topography of Brad Pitt's torso account for such a huge discrepancy? Because Troy was certainly no better than Alexander, and, personally, I felt the latter was actually far superior.
In fact, the more I meditate upon it, especially in the face of the harsh criticism the movie has received, the more I realize I genuinely liked Alexander. And this was in no small part due to the fact that it was very faithful to my experience of the man and his legend. As an historical movie (a title which, I admit, Troy never claimed for itself), I feel it was great success. I will admit that on a narrative level it didn't always work. The pacing was way off, the story too episodic, the denouement somehow unsatisfying. But that is because Alexander's tale is too big for even so long a movie. The first two battles against the Persians, at Issus and Granicus, of similar scale to that of Gaugamela, were left out. Gone was the Siege of Tyre, gone the pilgrimage to the temple of Ammon, gone the Gordian Knot. So many episodes that further enrich the powerful and enigmatic portrait of Alexander had to be left out as it is. But Gaugamela was extremely faithful to the accounts of our primary sources, and the debacle with Cleitus given the appropriate weight in Alexander's characterization. The Hephaistion relationship, perhaps the movie's greatest albatross, was actually handled very tastefully throughout. Babylon and the Hindu Kush looked absolutely amazing. Not to indulge in romanticism, but there were times when the sheer majesty of Alexander's achievements - his conquest, unification and exploration of the known and unknown world, which required dragging a huge, multi-national army across the Near East using only his legend, his charisma, and his single-minded ambition - was handled so effectively as to obscure any cinematic flaws.
No, Alexander isn't a perfect movie. It's not even a great movie. It doesn't deserve any best director or best actor nominations. Possibly it could have been recognised on a technical level, but somehow I imagine that movies that don't break even don't get a look-in when it comes time to hand out the gold statues. What I'm objecting to is the spite and malice that seems to have been levelled at the actors and film-makers simply because America didn't turn out to see the movie.
A whole buncha people went to see The Passion Of The Christ, and it still looks like a pile of crap to me.
It's late, and I'm pontificating.