Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Wicked Fun

  • Oliver's Stones? : Alexander

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Alexander  (2004)

    It’s easy to understand Oliver Stone’s boyhood hero worship of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered 90% of the known world by the age of 25, and over two million square miles by his death at 33. By most accounts, he did so without the unbridled imperialism and savagery of so many other conquistadors. It’s hard not to admire the Herculean directorial task, orchestrating battle scenes, engaging experts of every stripe: dialogue consultants, historians, animal trainers, military and equestrian coaches. No one could accuse Oliver Stone of dealing in half measures, so why is Alexander so plagued by ambivalence? Sporadic and choppy, dazzling and preposterous. Perhaps Stone was so overcome with devotion that he struggled to make Alexander the man truly accessible. It’s not a whitewash. We see him when troops are resentful, when he makes errors in judgment or lets ego get the better of him. But there’s something flawed about the tone, so bent on grandeur that it's excessively reverent. Mannered and sanctimonious.

    I was surprised at how derivative Alexander felt, as if Stone was afraid his usual volatile, sardonic approach wasn’t respectful enough. There were stirring, magnificent moments: young Alexander taming the stallion he will name Bucephalus, his later, victorious reception in Egypt. Lush spectacle and elaborate vistas that would have knocked DeMille on his ass. With it’s impressive cast and Stone’s resolute, unequivocal sensibilities, it’s difficult to understand why Alexander seems to be groping for the right strategy. Why it flounders and stumbles. You hear the lofty dialogue and can’t believe the pontificating. The actors aren’t bad, but their delivery is off-point. The one exception, Angelina Jolie (as Alexander’s mother, Olympias) nails the material, and the scenes between she and Farrell are some of the film’s best. Jolie can go over the top without trying our credibility. Even with a thick dialect she communicates, without making a speech. If only Stone had been content to reveal Alexander’s humanity and left the adoration to us.

    There’s been some debate over the casting of Colin Farrell as Alexander but I think he was an inspired choice. There are times when his energy and attitude lapses, when his choices as an actor seem ill-advised, or worse, embarrassing. However, this responsibility is Stone’s, and with decisive guidance, I think Farrell would have done just fine. Stone is telling the story of a legend, whose mother worshipped Dionysus and father was possibly the god Zeus. Connotations of a messiah are hard to ignore and Stone alludes to other Greek scripture as well. But there’s something odd about the visual language of the film. It’s not just the golden hair that frequently looks ridiculous. It’s expressions on Farrell’s face that send the wrong message; imagery that looks arbitrary or misdiagnosed.

    Historians disagree as to whether Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers, but historians often take liberties with information they don’t like. The fact that sex between male friends in ancient Greece was acceptable and unremarkable is hard to deduce from Alexander’s bizarre subliminal text: Farrell’s androgynous look in key scenes, the fey appearance of Jared Leto as Hephaistion, Alexander’s ubiquitous eunuch that looks like Julie Newmar in her Catwoman days. I have no problem with gender-blurring but resent the notion that copulating men must succumb to effeminacy or submission.

    When I heard that Stone was at the helm of Alexander, I believed that here, at last, was an iconoclast with the cojones to take on the “controversy” without caving to bullies who mask intolerance under the guise of Christianity. Past experience might have taught me better. It would be difficult to describe the depth of my disappointment with vague narrative references such as "...Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion's thighs." While I can appreciate the sly wit, there is clearly an unspoken intent to downplay Alexander's sexual predilections.

    The studios are glad to accept money and talent from the GLBT community, then sell us out in a heartbeat. We're told that no one cares if we're gay, as long as we don't make an issue out of it, by people who never try to imagine being queer in a culture where hetero-sex is constantly shoved down your throat. Radio, television, movies, periodicals, plays, advertisements, you can't escape it. An overwhelming majority of teen suicides are committed by gay kids because they are told over and over again that, at best, there is something horribly wrong with them. Imagine the healing power of knowing one of history's greatest heroes unashamedly loved and made love to his lifelong friend, Hephaistion. That one of the world's fiercest warriors mourned his friend’s death for days without hiding behind macho affectation. Think about the good this movie could have done. How different the world would be if we didn't pander to ignorance.


  • Strange Flowers: Proteus

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Rashomon  (1951)

    Tea and Sympathy  (1957)

    Go  (1999)

    Bad Education  (2004)

    Proteus  (2003)

    Proteus is an historical drama, shot directly on video in the style of many past PBS specials, more comparable in experience to theatre than film. In the wrong hands stiff and self-conscious, in the right ones understated and dynamic. Filmmakers John Greyson and Jack Lewis have found in actual records of incidents emerging from Robben Island, a penal colony of Cape Town, South Africa, intriguing metaphors (or barometers) for the politics of masculinity that suffused Amsterdam and South Africa in 1725. What makes Proteus ingenious, is how easily it applies to contemporary culture. Like To Kill a Mockingbird, it says more about the community than the accused. Informs by the questions it raises in the audience’s minds. Questions the characters never ask. A possible theme of Proteus might be grotesque consequences of the unspoken: particular acts that are untranslatable in Christian society. Professions of love that even the subtitles refuse to transmit in English.

    Proteus opens with a trio of stenographers taking dictation, dressed in attire that I think must place them somewhere between the 1950’s and 60’s. They are struggling to translate phrases without using terms that sound “too contemporary.“ It is not until the end of the film that Greyson and Lewis reveal them as court reporters in the sodomy trial of Claas Blank (Rouxnet Brow) and Rijkhaart Jacobsz (Neil Sandilands). I confess I’ve never seen a device quite like this, radios and relatively modern attire turning up amongst colonials, and no one batting an eye. But when you consider the situation: people behaving in ways inconsistent with the sophisticated reasoning available to them, clinging to the trappings of provincialism while taking enlightenment for granted (or ignoring it altogether) it fits.

    The film is filled with frank improbabilities, an African man named Blank, a prisoner flogged to death for stealing penguin eggs, male lovers dealing in horse-imagery (“Today I will be the cinnamon mare.”) a tobacco pouch made from a woman’s mammary. What makes these bizarre incidents useful, is that in a world where the “crime” of same-gender sexual attachment has less to do with activity than with protocol and caste, they make perfect sense; without losing their obvious absurdity. Claas and Rijkhaart are executed for their behavior while the botanist who employs them, Virgil Niven (Shaun Smyth) is never made accountable in a court of law.Proteus spends a great deal of time exploring language and the nature of truth. An officer is sacked for interpreting orders inappropriately, even though it is a discretionary blunder. Claas distorts language and folklore to curry favor with Niven. Niven names the strange flower by extrapolating from the same myth. As previously mentioned any words used to denote man-to-man sex is biblical and pejorative at best. Even Claas and Rijkhaart have trouble discussing it. And if either one of them declares his love aloud, it is literally lost in translation. Confession is worse than denial. In the sad, twisted world of Proteus, it is worse to express love for another man than to talk about sex between men. It’s worse that Rijkhaart was penetrated by a black man.

    The number of films that turn on personal agenda and conflicting versions of reality are numerous (Rashomon, The Lady in Question, Bad Education, Go! ) but this is something else entirely. Like Molina and Valentin in Kiss of the Spider Woman, Blank and Jacobsz keep positing different viewpoints until they find mutual terrain. Claas earns redemption by admitting homoerotic behavior and in doing so, elicits his own execution. If this sounds like a B-Movie just waiting to happen, somehow Greyson and Lewis avoid it. The riveting content supercedes the plot. And it doesn’t have the famished, pedestrian look of many video-dramas. The cinematography goes way beyond aesthetic cloying to imbue shots with vibrance and meaning.

    Virgil Niven the botanist eventually names the exotic, tropical flower Proteus, for the shape-shifting Greek sea god. At first Claas doesn’t get the connection, but the audience understands only too well. We all know that sex between guys is a fact of life, whether it’s between privileged-class white men in the wharf district of Amsterdam, racially divided prisoners, sailors or circle jerk buddies at summer camp. Proteus is about transforming experience by altering language, removing stigma by shifting connotation. It’s almost too easy to go back to Robert Anderson’s Tea and Sympathy, where the heroine tells her husband he persecutes a sensitive student for what he fears most in himself. Almost 50 years later and “it still is news.“ Whether they want to admit it or not, most men, however they identify, know where to find gay-sex when they want it. And know that discretion will spare them the consequences of civilization’s homophobic mass hysteria.

     

     


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
24252627282930
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930311234


Categories
 


Advertisement