Citizen Alexander? It is very difficult to say what this film is about. Of course, about the life path of the great conqueror. But Alexander is not shown as a conqueror, nor a strategist, nor a ruler touched by his greatness, nor a tyrant of the world ... in general. One listing of biography episodes is not enough. Many critical moments from the biography are completely missed. For example, it would be essential to show how a victorious army died out on its way home. So what did the director want to tell us? Even Tinto Brass's Caligula (1979) is a more intelligible film. In it the epigraph reveals the concept: “What is useful to a person if he acquires the whole world, and hurts his soul.” In "Alexander" instead of the conqueror we see some troubled person, always finding out relations with relatives and friends. This is probably the director’s vision. Alexander, they say, was seemingly successful, fought, won, became rich ... but forgot about loved ones, and as a result, he did not have a normal family, and quarreled with friends and killed them. If this is the director’s idea, then “Alexander” turns out to be closer not to the classic peplums, but to “Citizen Kane”, which, of course, is original, but strange.
Perhaps the reason for Alexander’s slurring is that for Stone, the Macedonian film was a blue dream. It often happens that because of love in the project, it is difficult for the director to look at the film through the eyes of the viewer and understand whether the movie is interesting or not. The Creator is interested from the very beginning. The movie failed at the box office. Obviously, the audience expected large-scale battle scenes, and got some horsemen galloping in the dust. But the reason for the failure is mainly the length of the film and the lack of an advertising campaign, as evidenced by the endless sales of the film on media. Eventually, the film found its audience.
Were the historical picture traditionally for historical inaccuracies, for the cute Farrell and Jolie. But remember that Stone wanted to see other actors in the film. Instead of Jolie, Zeta-Jones was supposed to play, and then Alexander’s mother would have been older. Farrell broke his leg during filming and, instead of prancing on a horse, turned into a sitting commander. But most of all, the film got because of one detail. And the opinions of both our and overseas viewers this time coincided. But if in other countries the criticality has come to naught, then we continue to criticize “Alexander” from the position of “why show such a thing”. Obviously, the development of public consciousness in our country has stopped at the stage: it is not necessary to imprison for this, of course, but it must be hidden and hidden in every possible way. The position is clearly hypocritical. One might ask a counter-question: why show Napoleon how many wives and mistresses he had? He's not known for his connections to women. However, no one is protesting the image of the personal life of the ruler, unless it is a question of... Moreover, the criticism of "Alexander" is still hypocritical, as the director was reproached for lack of historicity. “Give us what history has been like... except for one moment, it’s not necessary.” On the other hand, I do not share the opinion that the unusual sexual preferences of historical figures should be emphasized and disclosed in the entire format. That approach is equally preposterous.
"Alexander" can be seen, the picture is mostly beautiful, the budget allowed it. But to see on the screen some ancient citizen Kane is not interesting.