Your final is a send-in review of Oliver Stone’s Alexander1.
BACKGROUND: In 2004 there was a lot of hype about Stone’s film, which starred Colin Farrell as the world-conqueror. Angelina Jolie as his mother Olympias, and Val Kilmer as Philip. There was also about a rival production that was rumored to be in the works by Australian director Baz Luhrmann (with Leonardo DiCaprio as Alexander and Nicole Kidman as his mother Olympias), which never materialized.
Unfortunately, Stone’s film received a fairly harsh critical and commercial response. It’s not that the director didn’t give it a good try: just as Alexander had his Aristotle. Stone had as his mentor the prominent Oxford Alexander-scholar Robin Lane Fox. (Lane Fox wrote the official movie tie-in book “The Making of Alexander: The Official Guide to the Epic Film Alexander” (2005). and even got to lead a cavalry charge in the film.) Indeed, if Stone’s Alexander has a main strength, it is the attention to historical details, at least as far as they can be gleaned from our meager sources. But there are at least two problems to consider here: does accuracy with regard to individual details necessarily make a cohesive historical narrative…or. in general, a good him? Does Stone create a believable portrait of Alexander: a hero that you can relate to?
BASIC INSTRUCTIONS:
1. First, read the requirements below.
2. Then, view Stone’s him as dispassionately as you can. For the purposes of uniformity, we’ll be reviewing the original theatrical cut, which you can rent on Amazon prime for $2.99 * .* The him is long (2 hours and 55 minutes), so you may need to plan two sittings for that short rental period. Don’t forget to take notes while you’re watching!
*lf you enjoy this him (many do. judging from the stars on Amazon!) and are interested in seeing how Stone responded to the criticisms of his 2004 him. you can always check out his 2014 and 2016 directors’ cuts…which are both around 3 1/2 hours long…for FUN when the course is over!
1. Having watched the movie and taken good notes, write a review of around 2000 words (4 single-spaced pages) aimed less at the readers of People magazine than at readers of The New Yorker or even the American Journal of Archaeology.
REQUIREMENTS:
1. There are three sources you will be using to do this assignment.
a. The ancient sources found in Cheshire. PROPERLY CITED as in your discussions (e.g. “Plutarch 18”).
b. Cheshire’s own commentary and discussion. PROPERLY CITED (e.g. “Cheshire, p. xiv).
c. Your OWN understanding of what makes a good film.
1. You must choose 3*4 areas to focus on. NO LESS. NO MORE (see below for list). Your goal is to write a tight and authoritative piece that drills down into a few topics rather than throwing out random reactions to the film (which is why you should think about the things you’d most like to see in an Alexander movie, and check out the list of possible topics below, before watching the film).
2. You must begin with a thesis. It can be as simple as “the film is accurate with regard to (x) and (y) but entirely speculative in respect to [z]”, but of course you may go in an entirely different direction. As always, the thesis is produced by the EVIDENCE you have found, not the other way around! What you want to say about this movie, and why?
3. Your concluding paragraph will include a response to the following question.
Having taken this class, you are now an educated viewer of a historical film on Alexander the Great. Would you recommend it to your movie-loving friends who know nothing at all about Alexander? Why and why not? What might thrill them, on the one hand, or confuse them, on the other?
4. Do NOT consult outside materials. You don’t want reviews to influence your thinking, and you know much more about Alexander now than the average movie-goer, so just rely on what you’ve learned and your book. Papers that show signs of having consulted outside sources will not be accepted.
There is only one exception: if you want to use information you recall from another class (for example, on Greek civ. or ancient sexuality, or film studies, whether a high school or college), use a footnote to say where you got this information.
Here are some possible topics from which to choose. You will find many to be interrelated; it is okay to choose interrelated topics as long as you find enough to say to cover 4 single-spaced pages!
–accuracy of the battle depictions
-proportion of battle depictions to other themes/action
-connection between battles and Alexander’s mission.
-the character Ptolemy says at some point that Alexander’s men did not believe in Alexander’s “vision”. Does the film make clear what the vision is? If so. how do you interpret it? —the “Oedipal” triangle Stone depicts between Olympias, Philip, and Alexander
-how Stone chooses to depict (or ignore) the relationship between Macedonian and the Greeks (whom, it is important to recall, he and Philip conquered).
-how Stone chooses to depict non-Greeks/non-Macedonians (Persians, etc.)
-how Stone depicts the relationship between Alexander and his friends.
-how Stone depicts Alexander’s relationship with Roxana.
-Stone had his cast use different accents to represent different peoples. Did you find this useful or distracting?
-Alexander’s sexuality. Did you find this useful or distracting?