ATG Down Under

[stavros]

Hello, Merry Christmas & Happy New Year, All the best in 2005. Being down under Alexander the film, opens here in a few weeks and i recently saw it myself. scored a 5/10 for me. To me, the film portrayed him on occasions as a drunken, weak, sook. My perception of Megas Alexandros is far from that. found this article below, old news for you guys, new down under.Alexander's not so GreatBy STAVRO SOFIOSJanuary 3, 2005GET ready for a real stinker later this month GÇô and it's got nothing to do with a hot Sydney summer.
The year's first film epic, Oliver Stone's Alexander, opens on January 20 and it is already shaping up as one of the biggest box office flops in film history.The $US155 million GÇô $A200million GÇô toga epic has bombed big time overseas GÇô and now even the director is talking it down, apologising for the biggest flop of his career.
Panned by audiences and critics alike, the film is being pulled from theatres in the US after taking just $US33 million in more than a month GÇô even less than its $US40 million marketing budget.
Stone said at the weekend he was "dismayed" at the widespread attacks on the film, which he admitted was too long, didn't tell the story of Alexander the Great very well and was too focused on outing the ancient Greek hero.
A group of Greek lawyers have threatened to sue film distributor Warner Bros for depicting the historical figure as bisexual, with star Colin Farrell sporting blond hair, waxed legs and openly kissing two men in the three-hour epic.
The biopic has been dubbed Queer Eye for the Macedonian Guy but Stone insists the film is historically accurate and reflects the pagan rituals of about 330BC when the Macedonian king captured Persia.
"I still think it's a beautiful movie, but Alexander deserves better than I gave him," said Stone, the director of JFK.
"There was clear resistance to his homosexuality. It became the headline to the movie. They called him Alexander the gay. That's horribly discriminatory, but the film simply didn't open in the Bible belt. Kids weren't comfortable with men who hugged, a king who cries and expresses tenderness."
In what could also be a clever marketing ploy, Stone said he "failed to communicate" the story.
It is understood Australian distributors have no plans to cut back on the number of screens Alexander will play on.
Stone couldn't film in Greece because of Government objections to his portrayal of Alexander, a p

[stavros]

Stone couldn't film in Greece because of Government objections to his portrayal of Alexander, a prodigy of Greek philosopher Aristotle who was king of the Macedonians at 20 and ruled the Persian empire by 30. He died at 32.
One critic wrote: "Easily the most fantastic self-destruction I have witnessed in years, Alexander is sordid evidence of what happens when Hollywood producers, burned-out directors and unenthused stars stand in a circle and set fire to $150 million.
"The real Alexander isn't just rolling in his grave, he's clawing his decayed eyes out."
Australian director Baz Luhrmann's own Alexander the Great project, with a working title Alx, is still on the drawing board.
The Moulin Rouge and Strictly Ballroom director "still intends to make it", a spokesman said.
"He currently has a number of projects in development and he has yet to decide which will be next on his slate."
Stone, who hasn't made a film in five years, said he had dreamed of making Alexander since film school and was devastated by the ferocity of the critics' attacks on him.cheersstavros

[maciek]

Well I saw the movie yesterday and I have to say I'm really dissapinted. After such productions like LoTR and Gladiator I believed that the best producers in the world they can produce something really good. I don't like to mention about sarissa's lenght or persians "uniforms" (which was shining from gold in Plutarchus) or mixing three battles into one because I understand that movie is to short to show all... but what happened in Gugamela where Alex took some ride for a half of the battle after which he ordered "attack in the hole!" Why he didn't just wait in the line of his troops like it was in sources? What happened with Hydaspes battle - it was some general storming the Porus's army with no tactic at all... Well in Gladiator was shown much more intelligence in the battles...
And what strucked me most I really don't understand all what happened just after wedding with Roxana. Even her people (in the movie) said to Alex that she loves him, Alex also looked at her with some affection (I suppose) so why after marriage she defended so wild? What Oliver wanted to say by this? Well I just don't understand what for hi did it...
Sorry I'm just few hours after this movie, so I'm still under the stong influence of it.Maciek

[amyntoros]

Actually, Stavros, this isn't so much *old* news as very carefully edited news - and edited in such a manner as to make Oliver Stone say what the writer of the article wanted him to say - a sad example of how to take quotes out of context and change their meaning.Yes, Stone did say, ""I still think it's a beautiful movie, but Alexander deserves better than I gave him," however, the very next sentence in the original interview is, "There was clear resistance to his homosexuality. It became the headline to the movie." In other words, the media focus on the homosexual elements obscured the story of Alexander that Stone was trying to tell.The link to the original interview that Stone gave was posted here by someone else and I don't know how many Pothosians actually read it, but it was never about Stone admitting he had failed in his attempt to tell Alexander's story, but that he had failed to communicate it to an *American* audience. The quote in your article which says, 'In what could also be a clever marketing ploy, Stone said he "failed to communicate" the story.' is an example of not-so-judicious editing to twist the meaning. The original quote is, "I really love this subject so much, but perhaps I just failed to communicate that to an American audience and American critics." The man focus of the interview was about what Stone thought he might have done to sell the movie to America. When that much is spent on a film it has to reach the widest audience possible. In other words, to really sell it over here it needed to bring in a wide audience, including the young male moviegoers that made huge successes out of films like Scary Movie, American Pie and the like. These movies certainly contained plenty of sexual scenes, but good old, gross-out, over-the-top heterosexual sex! I'm not being critical about the audience that loved these movies - just stating a fact. And the biggest blockbuster this holiday has been Meet the Fockers which has sold out in every theatre. What does that tell you about the mass market? Certainly there are other movies directed at a more mature audience, but they don't normally have a budget of over 150 million dollars.(cont.)

[amyntoros]

I liked the movie and I've admitted it here, but it really makes no difference how I feel. The idea that the film should or might have been sanitized and simplified for the US audience simply fills me with horror. I'd have been appalled at having only that option while the rest of the world was able to see the film as the director intended. Love it or hate it, it doesn't matter - I don't want a film about Alexander that a director had to self-censor in order to reach the lowest common denominator of his audience. And there's also a lesson here about not believing everything that you read. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[iskander_32]

Linda HailWith regard to you comments and the need to suit the American audience I couldn't egree with you more and to be totally honest the box office smashes I wouldn't raise a dogs leg up a tree to.The Movie watchers cry out for cartoons, Animated animals wit Eddie Murphys voices.If you look at the movies that get to the top they are hardly thought provoking or intelectually challenging I cant remember when I saw a good movie, Troy was slaughterd, and to be honest I didnt mind it.American movie goers as is there society id still very racist and homophobic regardless of what they say,, There heroes dont and nver did actually exist the American culture, Needs Spider man, Supereman captain America ets even the John Waynes they really have not had a real hero like Alexander and would never undersatnd him.RegardsKenny

[stavros]

linda,there is an old greek saying. 'dont beleive anything you read and only half of what you see'. especially media.that article in my post i basically cut and pasted out of an australian newspaper. i was more interested when the article mentioned baz and him still having alex on the cards for a movie. stone could have really made this an epic personally. this movie is well below average. but thats my opinionkind regards,stavros

[amyntoros]

Hello Kenny,You're pretty much right about the state of the movie business, though I would never go so far as to blame all of American culture for this.-á And that isn't because as a Brit living in the US I don't want to offend.-á The truth is, there isn't an all encompassing cultural ethos that defines "America," particularly in the big cities.-á The real problem is that a film costing over 150 million dollars must be marketed as if there were such a culture.-á As I said before, the advertising campaign over here was aimed at the largest percentage of movie goers - the segment of the population that is known to make or break a movie, and that is the teens-to-twenties male audience.-á TV commercials made the film look like a grand action movie, (think Scorpion King) with excerpts of the battles, a little Angelina Jolie, and the raunchy scene with Rosario Dawson.-á Unfortunately, that's hardly what the movie is all about, and as that very same audience *is* generally homophobic, (and if they are not, they are rarely likely to admit it to their peers) once the reviews were out the targeted audience stayed away in droves.-á Add to this the loss of the bible-belt population who would never attend such a film, and your only hope is the more sophisticated, worldly, and mature viewer.-á Almost forty-million of these viewers did go to see the film, but who knows how many stayed away simply because of the intensity of the bad reviews?Which brings me to the reviews...-á Whatever anyone here thinks of the film, it definitely does not deserve the vitriolic, often puerile condemnation that it has received in the media.-á I have to believe, as has been stated elsewhere, that this film was seen as an opportunity to attack Oliver Stone; that they *wanted* to hate the film before they ever saw it, and things like the so-called homosexual aspects gave them the opportunity to go for his throat.-á Why they should want to do this, I really don't know or understand, but when I saw the New York Post with a banner headline right across the top of the front page that said "Alexander the Geek," it confirmed what I already knew - that there wasn't going to be much in the way of fair and honest reviewing of the film.-á I have never known the US media to have such universal hatred for a film, and I have seen some really BAD films in my time!-á I actually feel sorry for Oliver Stone, I really do. No matter what opinion anyone on this forum has about the movie, there is absolutely no dou

[amyntoros]

I actually feel sorry for Oliver Stone, I really do. No matter what opinion anyone on this forum has about the movie, there is absolutely no doubt that Stone really loves Alexander and that he wanted to show this with his film. Yes, I agree the film is flawed. I saw it for the second time last week in Times Square at the only theatre still showing it. This time I had all the bad reviews and the comments on Pothos in my head, but the only real difference in my impression was that I thought Colin's acting to be weak in the scenes with his army, especially the mutiny in India. He portrayed Alexander's pain and rejection very well, but there needed to be more anger in him. Alexander had the power of life and death over these men, but I never quite believed that Colin's Alexander understands this. However, I still found more things to enjoy the second time around, especially in the details. This time I noticed the "stolen" Greek statues just inside the palace at Babylon; and I realized that Alexander, when gazing into the sky during his charge in the Indian battle, was looking for Zeus's eagle - Alexander's eagle - which wasn't there. Maybe it's just me, but I can see that Stone poured his heart into this film and I'm grateful for it. And at least one academic authority on Alexander realizes that the film is a fiction and is not meant to be a documentary of Alexander's life, and that is Professor Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman. You can find her extensive and excellent review at:http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~jreameszimmer ... 2.htmlI've rambled on long enough and I'm sure you weren't expecting such a long reply. In a few days we will see what you and the rest of the British contingent of Pothosians thinks about the film. Given most of the reactions here, I'm not expecting too much in the way of positive response, but we shall see. However, I'm daring to prophecy that once the media vilification of the film is in the past, Alexander will become a major cult movie. Remember that I said it here! :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[amyntoros]

But can you be sure that if Baz does make his movie, you will like it any better than Stone's version? If he goes with the Manfredi novels then I wouldn't expect too much. I thought Manfredi's Alexander completely characterless, and that he hadn't captured *any* of the essence of Alexander. Still, the novels were successful so the movie probably would be as well, and it would certainly reach the target audience. (I admit I hated the books.) A generic Alexander for a generic audience. It seems apt.Then of course, Baz could always make it into a musical! I have these images of the Macedonian army dancing in formation to the tune of Queen's We Are The Champions, or Alexander exhorting his men with arms outstretched while singing To Dream The Impossible Dream! You never know... :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[stavros]

in terms of music. Iron Maiden released a song about ATG many many years ago. i downloaded it not to long ago. cheersstavros

[amyntoros]

Ahem, that would be *four* million Americans who saw the movie, not forty! It isn't that I did the math incorrectly - I didn't do the math at all.

[wmp]

The Alexander the Great Musical? Ah mock not - there were
rumours some while ago about Andrew Lloyd-Webber & Tim Rice
writing one... It featured a chorus line of dancing elephants.
Iskander Superstar anyone?

[marcus]

Hi WMP,Nice to see you back - you haven't been with us for ages!What a ghastly idea. The idea of a chorus of dancing elephants just makes me think of Fantasia ... only Fantasia would be better.I'm sorry, but Alexander deserves better than the anodyne music and lyrics that Lord Webber would end up with. Thank goodness the project never happened. I'll happily stick with Handel's "Alexander's Feast" (which, I admit, I can't listen to in one go).All the bestMarcus