Alexander the Great (1956) Reviews

• Fascinating but frustrating!

  markcapps2000-08-14

  Now, we shouldn't look to Rossen's film for actual history, EXCEPT as reflected in later romance and, indeed, the Alexander legend. The film does indeed egregiously telescope events and make a complete chronological, genealogical and motivational muddle of real historical events. Absolute realism is not the point of the film, however -- Hollywood is guilty of much simplistic remaking of history, but Rossen's film is much more personal and ambitious in grand design if not in little details -- the portrait of Alexander as a man, brilliantly realized on many levels by Richard Burton, is the real focus of the movie. What we have here is a portrait of the disintegration of the character of a promising, ambitious young man, intoxicated with power and the lies accompanying that, and the formative power that the strong personalities of his parents, Olympias and Philip, had over Alex's mind. For this last reason, I find the first half of the film to be superbly done. His stimulating contact with Aristotle, the camaraderie between him and his companions, and especially his complex relationships with Olympias and Philip are brought out beautifully (if necessarily briefly), by Burton, in the film. (Most of this is derived from the late Greek biographer Plutarch's "Life of Alexander".) Burton plays the young Alexander beautifully, full of emotional ambiguities and hidden resentments. The murder of Attalus after the assassination of Philip is not only presented as the first of Alexander's blood crimes, but as a necessary consequent of his upbringing, as abetted and encouraged by his amazing, monstrous mother. The rest of his career is presented not only as a continuation (and surpassing!) of his father's ambitions, but as a fulfillment of Olympias' own expectations for her son. The psychological complexity here is exquisite, and appropriate. This fine beginning makes the rest of the film redundant and annoying. We, of course, expect a good exposition of Alex's adult achievements, but Rossen is frustrated at being tied to history here (mostly derived from the ancient historians Arrian and Diodorus), and we are treated to a perfunctory, lazy account of all of his victorious battles and conquests. (For instance, the battles of Ipsus and Gaugamela are conflated into one encounter, and the degeneration of Alex into a paranoid alcoholic is too broadly played.) The usual "cast of thousands" used in the battle scenes are not convincing, and we do not feel that the fates of nations and peoples hang in the balance. We are not granted any glimpse of Alex's genius at tactics and generalship. Darius is a mere cipher, not a convincing King and opponent. Only Peter Cushing as Memnon gives us a spark of convincing opposition to Alexander's tyranny, and he refreshingly reminds us that not all Greeks responded to Alex's call for a "Panhellenic" crusade against Persia. (In historical fact, more Greeks, in all probability, fought AGAINST Alexander than for him!) Memnon's death at the battle at the Granicus is also an unhistorical invention; he died of disease a year or so later, after leading the increasingly successful resistance to Alex in western Asia Minor. His wife Barsine was certainly a captive to Alexander, and probably bore him a son as well, but this fact is blown up far too much in the film. The real Alexander's emotional attachments were homosexual (to Bagoas, Hephaestion, Cleitus, et al.). In short, the first half of the film is well realized and acute, while the second half is confused, hurried and unsatisfying. We understand much about Alex from the family drama in the first part; we understand little about him from the second. Rossen certainly had limitations in telling this story; if he had a larger budget and less (at the time) conventional restrictions on telling a story, then we would have had a different and better (and much longer!) movie. The golden age of the epic film may well be past, but I think that it can still be told. Consider this review as a challenge: this story can be told, well, and at length, with all the richness and complexity of the real, without sacrificing drama and immediate interest. This is certainly one of the most fascinating stories of recorded history, and it is a shame that Rossen was unable to complete what he had so brilliantly begun.

• Too ambitious for a movie but fun for the Alexander fanatic!

  chrinic272001-04-18

  As long as you don't mind the historical inaccuracies, this movie may prove helpful for the Alexander fanatic (like myself). After 1st seeing this film, I was horrified by the botch job that was done on the real Alexander story, but after forcing myself to sit through it a 2nd time I was able to lighten up a bit on the factual content, and just look for any great scenes that this film had to offer. Particularly, is the scene where Alexander goes to Athen's and the background shows a beautifully recreated shiny white Erectheon. Later, Alexander walks through the Parthenon...a dream scene of ancient history buffs everywhere. Another good scene was right before the Battle at the River Granicus. Here Alexander eyes his opponents on the opposite river bank, and comments on who will be the 1st to fall...Richard Burton did a great job in some scenes, but overall seemed to lack the charisma that exemplified Alexander. He has the look, but the British accent doesn't suit Alexander very well. I could go on, but really, see it yourself, or better yet, read "The Campaigns of Alexander" by Arrian, it is much more than any movie could ever be on this enigmatic historical figure.

• A philosophical epic

  Erik G.1999-02-10

  I have always been fascinated by the short and violent life of Alexander of Macedonia, which of course makes me biased in reviewing this film. It has been said of this film that Robert Rossen, who produced, wrote and directed this film, was aiming for a masterpiece but failed honorably. While this is true in a way, I still enjoyed it more than that. This movie is not fast in pace, and the direction is not perfect either, but it feels authentic. I'm sure that not everything portrayed is true to history (does anyone really care?), but it is convincing, and the acting is solid. Richard Burton is a very good Alexander, and he adds a lot of subtle edges to this enigmatic figure from history (just ignore the silly blond wig...) All in all, Alexander the Great is a good film, perhaps too ambitious, and even though it is not very accessible to viewers not familiar with the territory, it is still quite dramatic, convincing and enjoyable if you like historical epics. And even though the film doesn't ask you to care too much about the characters, it is still an interesting, intellectual, and high minded story you probably will not forget. If you keep in mind that it is the events of history that are really on display here, and not so much the individual players, you may enjoy it as I did.

• Well acted and produced - fair direction - but March is best

  theowinthrop2006-05-29

  Robert Rossen is one of the directors whose career was going well when the blacklist hit, and he found himself in a tailspin. After "Johnny O'Clock", "Body And Soul", and "All The King's Men" Rossen seemed headed for major directing work. Then came the blacklist. In the years of Senator McCarthy Rossen did two projects, "The Brave Bulls" and "Alexander The Great". Then he began regaining his stride with "They Came To Cordura" and finally the film we really recall him for: "The Hustler". But he left a relatively small body of movies, and we can only marvel at the less than ten titles it includes. This was (unless you count the fictional "They Came To Cordura") the only history film in his work, and it was done in Europe. In fact, of the leads, only one (Fredric March) is American. It is (like all Rossen's work) impressive to look at - he was a master at composition of figures on the screen. Look at the sequence of the assassination of Philip of Macedon. Philip leaves a crowd that remains on the outskirts and ascends steps to a temple. A figure darts out and attacks and kills him. The fate of the character (although there has been a morbidity about Philip since the film began) is re-enforced by the way death seems to reach out an knock him down. As I said, the film is very impressive to see. I stress this last scene of March's because his Philip has more going for him in the movie than it's erstwhile central figure. Alexander was his father's rival (egged on by his mother as Richard the Lion Hearted is egged on by his mother in "The Lion In Winter"). But Philip is more of a superstitious type than Henry II of England. He is aware that his son is needed as an heir to complete Philip's dream (uniting the Greek state under Macedonian sovereignty into a single power). But he is aware that the signs suggest his heir is going to be his great rival and destroyer (like the Greek Gods led by Zeus overthrew their father Chronus). March's wife, the clever and deadly Olympias (Danielle Darrieux) knows how to push March's buttons about his fears, and March finally does what Henry II threatens to do - divorce his wife and marry again - and breed new "better" sons. It seals his death warrant - Olympias will not tolerate a rival on Philip's throne. March therefore has a more interesting role than (curiously) Burton as Alexander. I know that sounds strange, but March's personal turmoil is much more interesting to consider and watch. Historically, Philip is frequently overlooked because of his son's stunning military achievements against Persia, and his empire building, but Philip actually was a clever monarch. Interestingly enough, while Alexander's body was eventually buried in a beautiful tomb in Alexandria, Egypt, the tomb has not been found by archaeologists. But twenty years ago Philip's remains were found in Macedonia. Philip, in a sense, has survived his son. After March leaves the scene, Burton becomes the center of attention - his role in taking over Greece rapidly replaced by his role in bringing down the old Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius I, and Xerxes (see "The Three Hundred Spartans"). Possibly too much is by-passed - the heroic attempts of the last great democrat of Athens, Demosthenes (Michael Hordern), to stop this juggernaut threatening Greeks's city states, is seen too quickly. The confrontation with Darius III (Harry Andrews) is handled too quickly too - not quite the monarch his ancestors who invaded Greece were, his defeat and death are tragic and deserving of deeper plumbing. Rossen decides to concentrate on Alexander and his role of building that empire that stretched from the Nile to the Ganges - one of history's most astounding military achievements. Certain quasi-legendary events are shown - the cutting of the "Gordian Knot" for example. The corrupting influence of the growth of Alexander's power is shown too, up to his premature death. He was an "aged" 33 when he left the scene. What would he have done if he lived into old age? Would he have noticed on the western boundaries of his empire those two peculiar states, Carthage and Rome? His relations with the Jews in Jerusalem and the Holy Land were quite good (for a change the Jews realized it would make sense not to fight such a powerful invader - in fact to this day Jewish families live up to an agreement with the Greeks to allow their sons, occasionally, to bear the name of "Alexander", the one non-Jewish name allowed). Would Alexander have used Greek culture to unify the entire ancient world? Or would the relative decadence of the Persian world have undermined his plans? A ten year reign some twenty three hundred years ago that is still remembered, is astounding. But where would it have ended?

• A colossal bore

  dkncd2007-11-06

  "Alexander the Great" not surprisingly attempts to portray the life of Alexander the Great. On the surface it seems as though it should be excellent considering that the cast is led by two prolific actors, Richard Burton and Fredric March as Alexander and his father Philip respectively. The film also features elegant costumes and lavish sets laden with depictions of ancient art and architecture. However, all of these attributes disappointingly don't prevent the film from being extremely tedious. The film starts with Alexander's earlier life in Macedon and is mostly focused on portraying antagonisms between Alexander and Philip and the relationship of Alexander's mother to both. Richard Burton and Fredric March have some fine moments, but for the most part their dialogue is uninteresting, which makes the film mostly dull since most of the scenes in the film show lengthy discourses. There are jokes added as well that are often followed by a number laughing, but the humor is mostly stale. There is one amusing point where Philip suggests that Alexander should wait until he is dead before naming a city after himself, but this represents an exception rather than the norm. Barry Jones did give an enjoyable performance as Aristotle, although he is only a marginal element in the film. During this first phase of the film the Battle of Chaeronea of is also portrayed, where forces led by Philip and Alexander defeated a combined Athenian and Theban force in order to unite Greece under Macedonian rule. The battle, despite having an array of extras in it, is handled clumsily. It starts with brief shots of infantry and cavalry crossing a stream and then fighting out of formation. Then the focused is placed on Philip fighting one-on-one and Alexander charging in after him. This portrayal seems to bear little to no resemblance to the actual battle of history, is short in duration and not particularly exciting. Shortly after half way through the film, Philip dies and the film moves to a portrayal of Alexander's military exploits in Persia. It is in this stage we are introduced to Memnon, a Greek fighting with the Persians. Peter Cushing gives a strong performance as Memnon armed with sharp lines, making his the top performance of the film though the character is seen in relatively few scenes. Harry Andrews is also notable as the Persian emperor Darius, though Darius is never made particularly interesting in the context of an opponent to Alexander. However, the scene representing the correspondence between Darius and Alexander showing the "clash of egos" was well-done. Most of this phase of the film is a rotation between short battle scenes and more mostly dull dialogue with some rare decent scenes. The Battle of the Granicus is shown basically as a brief cavalry charge. The treatment of Granicus is better than the treatment of Chaeronea, but not much better. There is another final battle between Alexander and Darius, presumably intended to represent the Battle of Gaugamela. The battle starts with a Perisan chariot charge and seems as though it will be interesting, but it quickly culminates in a brief uninteresting cavalry charge as well. The main problem with these battle scenes is that they fail to give a sense of Alexander's military genius. It seems as though he just accumulated territory through a series of brief heroic cavalry charges and the film never represents the tactics used in any of the battles. These are also a series of brief and unnecessary battle clips overlapped by a map of Persia to represent the conquests not shown in "fuller" battles. After Alexander's conquests, the film ends poorly with an uninteresting "harmony and unity" speech from Alexander for Greeks and Persians. "Alexander the Great" is a colossal bore, and I strongly recommend avoiding it.