Echoes in Eternity, Part II - "Alexander"

SPOILERS ahead.

Moving on with my Echoes in Eternity trilogy, I revisited Alexander (technically titled Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut), which is chronologically and thematically the logical next film to watch. But before I get into the themes of immortality and glory, I need to address all the different versions of this chaotic film from Oliver Stone. I saw the theatrical cut in theaters and honestly liked it a lot. I admired the ambition of it, and even if Colin Farrell’s hair looked goofy at times, I loved his unhinged performance. But it was destroyed by critics, and it was a bomb. Stone made a director’s cut for the home video release that was oddly shorter in an attempt to make the movie more action-packed and digestible. After DVD sales did surprisingly well, Stone was allowed to make this “final” cut, which added pretty much everything he filmed to the movie. Due to the success of that release, he then made an “Ultimate Cut,” which I only learned about after rewatching the final cut. From what I’ve read, the Ultimate Cut is a little shorter but very similar to the Final Cut, so I doubt I will buy this movie again. Anyway, this article is based on the Final Cut, and not we know that “ultimate” is more final than “final.” Perhaps some day I’ll write about the eventual “Immortal Cut.”

Echoes in Eternity, Part II

Alexander is the logical next film to write about because it references Achilles so often. Alexander is constantly told he is Achilles (Hephaestion is his Patroclus) and is a son of Zeus. Because of this (and the fact that he is a king, he feels the need to prove himself and gain enough glory to be remembered along with the heroes of myth.

For Alexander, it’s not just about winning battles, though. Unlike Troy, which makes the fighting seem more important than the war itself, Alexander is about gaining fame by changing the world with war. Alexander isn’t trying to conquer the known world for bragging rights. He dreams of unifying the world and bringing it peace...through war. 

Alexander is a bit misguided and naive in his goal for world peace, but at least he’s aiming for more than just glory. He wants his triumphs to mean something. This is a refreshing progression from the ideas posited in Troy concerning glory and fame beyond death. Still, Alexander is seemingly punished for his goal, and is warned about it, as well.

A key scene in the film takes place in a cave of murals with Alexander’s father, Philip, talking about the myths and the gods. He talks about how the gods, and time itself, will destroy everything in the end, and that men are “slaves” to the gods, or simply the progression of time. Nothing man can do will be permanent. Glory will always be temporary. But, like most heroes, these warnings fall on deaf ears for Alexander. It’s a common theme in films about ambitious people; they’re told something is impossible or pointless, but they do it anyway and prove the naysayers wrong. But with Alexander, the naysayer is right because reality is right. Time will destroy everything. 

Ptolemy confirms this in his final scene. He explains how forty years after Alexander’s death, his empire was gone. So what was the point? Was it to be painted on the walls like Achilles? It seems as if Alexander himself realizes in the end that there’s no comfort in knowing he built an empire that would be remembered for years. He died surrounded by people but actually alone. All around him were just concerned with what power they would retain, gain, or lose upon Alexander’s death. 

Alexander seemed to realize, after Hephaestion’s death, that his conquests, great as they may be, were for nothing if he ended up being alone. All through the film, everyone pleaded with him to return to Babylon to take control of his empire, but also to enjoy himself and have a life. As usual with characters such as Alexander, he only realizes the wisdom of these requests too late. But had he heeded them, there would be no story to tell in the first place.

That is the paradox of stories like Alexander. They glorify these flawed, ambitious people while also conveying the message that they should have never bothered with all of this in the first place. This isn’t a fault in the story; it’s a truth about life and the passage of time. It’s natural to want to be remembered, but the more people who end up remembering you, the fewer you end up with in your life that have a real connection with. Sure, Alexander had plenty of lovers and whatnot, but he was too consumed with his goal of conquest to have an actual life with any of them. The same goes for anyone today who becomes famous or memorable or whatever. They must devote so much time to their work or expanding their influence that any attempt at a normal, real life is lost. 

But once again, even those that we eventually watch movies about will be forgotten. So even when someone like Alexander achieves his goal of immortality through fame, it’s not truly immortality because it’s finite. It may last thousands of years, but there will be an end to it.

Alexander is unique because it addresses this a bit. Along with the cave scene with Philip, there’s the sequence near the end of the film with Alexander’s men becoming tired of fighting. Alexander chastises them for “falling in love with the things that destroy men.” He means the comforts of life (gaining money and taking wives and whatnot), but he also seems to be talking about forming emotional attachments that keep you from questing for glory. His soldiers yell at him about wanting to see their children and grandchildren again before they die. Is love for your children a “thing” that destroys men? The soldiers have reached their breaking point because you can only ask a foot soldier to continue for so long just for glory. These men know their names will be lost to time; they want to spend what time they have left with the few people who will remember them. At this point in the film, though, Alexander is still more in love with creating his myth than he is with any actual person.

Alexander finally decides to go home after a brush with death, but he would have been better off dying on the battlefield. Sure, he realizes what he missed out on while he dies, but the tragedy of Alexander is that he would never be able to enjoy life. He could only think of missed opportunities at a regular life when he was physically dying. When Alexander was healthy, he would only think of the next conquest. This is why we remember him, for now, and it’s why he died surrounded by power-hungry vultures instead of loved ones.

Why Do I Own This?

I know this movie gets shit on and outright dismissed by a lot of people, but I love it. On top of the cinematic elements I enjoy (the scope of it, the unhinged performances, the battles, etc.), any movie that can make me ponder what it means to live is a movie I want to own and watch again. Also, I’ve enjoyed every version of this movie, and I’m a sucker for new cuts of movies I like. But I have reached my limit with this one, especially since the most recent cut was part of a collector’s set that would cost at least $40. I just can’t bring myself to spend any more money on this film.

Random Thoughts

Stone’s introduction is great. “If you hated it, you’ll probably hate it more.” He doesn’t give a fuck at this point. He just made the version he wanted to see, and it’s honestly better because of it.

I love the shot when the camera leaves Alexander’s speech to follow a bird as it flies over the battleground. 

I like a good pre-battle speech as much as anyone, but let’s face it, maybe ten percent of Alexander’s men heard what he was saying.

More war movies should let the audience know which part of the battle we’re seeing.

At one point, one of Alexander’s commanders yells, “Back and to the left! Back and to the left!” No way that’s an accidental quote from JFK.

You have to appreciate a battle scene in which someone decapitates an enemy, and then uses the head as a weapon.

“Alexander, at 25, was now king of all.” Fuck. I was just the king of Jagerbombs when I was 25, and even then that’s a stretch. Maybe an archduke of Jagerbombs is more accurate…

Val Kilmer’s Philip is pretty much his Jim Morrison constantly at his most fucked up.

Brian Blessed as a wrestling instructor is perfect casting.

“Do I seem so old?” No, you don’t Angelina, and you’re definitely too young to play Farrell’s mother since you’re less than one fucking year older than him!

The cave scene with Val Kilmer is just a series of quotable lines. The scene itself is basically there to map out the plot for Alexander. “You’ll defy the gods and gain glory, but it will all be destroyed in the end. But even knowing this, you’ll try it anyway.”

Jonathan Rhys Meyers’s line reading of, “Alexander, be reasonable!” is so fucking strange and out of nowhere.

I can’t think of a more awkward wedding night than having your new wife discover your male lover and your eunuch lover. That’s something you really need to ease your new spouse into…

“When the local water turned putrid, we drank the strong wine.”

The last hour is easily my favorite as it shows Farrell at his craziest.

Easily my favorite image of the film is Alexander and Bucephalus facing off against the elephant.

No one before or since has said, "Execute him!" better than Farrell in this movie. Nor will they ever.

..

"Tigerland" - The Last Great Movie from Joel Schumacher

*As always, I write these articles under the assumption that you’ve seen the movie in question. So...SPOILERS.

Once again, there’s no theme to my next choice. Tigerland just happened to be right next to The Last Samurai on my shelf, and I wanted to watch it again. There is a common war theme, I suppose, but these are vastly different movies. Looking at it as a Vietnam movie, it is equally similar and different from other, classic Vietnam movies.

A Vietnam War movie without the war

I suppose the most interesting aspect of Tigerland in regards to the Vietnam War is that it’s a war movie that never actually shows the war. This isn’t completely unique as there are plenty of movies about a war’s effect on the soldiers that isn’t about the war itself. But those movies tend to take place after the war, not before it. Tigerland is just about the few weeks leading up to a platoon being shipped off to the war. In many ways, it is a ticking clock movie with the war being the bomb that will go off at the end.

Since Tigerland is all about the training, it would be easy to compare it to Full Metal Jacket’s first half. But that film’s first half wasn’t about the character’s all dreading going to war; it was more about the negative effect a strict drill sergeant can have on a recruit. Tigerland has plenty of drill sergeant stuff in it, but it’s more background noise than the focus of the film. The drill sergeants are nothing compared to what awaits them in Vietnam.

So Tigerland is about the regular grunts in Vietnam, which means it’s more like Platoon. But once again, it’s different because we never see Vietnam. In that way, this could be seen as a kind of spiritual prequel to Platoon. We see guys from all walks of life in this group, and we hear most of their stories. Hell, one of the main characters is even someone who volunteered, just like Charlie Sheen’s character in Platoon. They even have the same reason: thinking it would be unfair to skip out on the war when someone less fortunate would take their place.

I’m not making these comparisons to point out how derivative Tigerland is. For one thing, it’s impossible for a Vietnam movie to not be a little derivative since there are so many celebrated movies about that war. Instead, I’m pointing this out as a reason why Tigerland should be mentioned along with those films as one of the best about the Vietnam War.

What sets Tigerland apart the most for me is the main character of Roland Bozz, played by Colin Farrell in his first major American role. Aside from having an awesome name, Bozz is an interesting character since he seems to be a man out of time and place in the Army. His only goal is to get himself and others out of the war. At the time the film is set, he would be seen as a traitor and a coward by most people. But with the hindsight of the War and the general public opinion about it these days, he comes across more like a hero.

Bozz himself would hate being called that, just as he hates it when his newfound friend, Jim, takes the blame for him for one of his pranks. He likes to think he’s above heroics, friendship, etc. His character arc is realizing that he’s not, and he sacrifices himself by staying behind to keep Jim out of the War, in essence taking Jim’s place in Vietnam because he saw that Jim didn’t have what it takes to survive over there.

Bozz is what brings me back to this film every few years. I find him entertaining (and Farrell is great, even pulling off a believable Texan accent [of course this is coming from some dude in Indiana, so what do I know?]). More than that, though, I find him compelling. He acts like he doesn’t care about anyone when he actually cares about his fellow soldiers more than anyone else in the film. In a genre in which it’s usually hard to tell one soldier from the next, Bozz is a true character.

Schumacher is more than just the guy who ruined Batman

This film is most likely remembered as Colin Farrell’s first American film, but I think of it as Joel Schumacher’s comeback. (Farrell himself crashed and burned a few years after this film, but he’s now doing some of his best work.) Unfortunately, that comeback didn’t amount to much. He made another, more successful, movie with Farrell (Phone Booth), but after that everything he made was either terrible or just mediocre. (Thought I haven’t seen Blood Creek, which sounds interesting.) His last film was 2011’s Trespass, a completely forgettable Nic Cage and Nicole Kidman home invasion movie. He has nothing in production right now. But I think Schumacher is unfairly judged.

Most people remember Joel Schumacher as the guy who turned Tim Burton’s Batman franchise into a cartoonish travesty. (I agree that Batman & Robin is terrible, but I will defend Batman Forever...well, forever. It came out at just the right time in my childhood and nostalgia prohibits me from saying anything negative about that fun entry in the franchise.) But if you look at Schumacher’s filmography, you’ll see he’s had a very wide-ranging career. Hell, the guy made A Time to Kill in between his two Batman movies.

Schumacher also directed The Lost Boys, Falling Down, The Client, and 8MM. Some people might not consider some, or any, of these films classics, but I found them to be interesting. And I think The Lost Boys is a campy classic, and Falling Down is a great movie that seems forgotten now (it will very likely be a future film I discuss on this site). And just check out this past article to see my obsession with 8MM.

While Schumacher has made some good films, it’s hard to describe his style. In fact, he’s one of those directors who seems to have no style or common theme to his work. I used to think of this as a negative, but is it, really? There’s something to be said for these workhorse directors who can make any kind of film. And Schumacher really could make any kind of film. Just imagine a preview for one of his movies: “From the director of The Lost Boys, Batman & Robin, A Time to Kill, and The Phantom of the Opera…”

Sometimes it’s refreshing to come across a director like Schumacher. I don’t know what each movie will look like. Will it be straightforward like most of his work? Will it be a neon nightmare like Batman & Robin? Will it be handheld and gritty like Tigerland? Who knows? It makes for an interesting watch at times. Now, I’ll never say, “I feel like watching a Schumacher movie” the way I will say, “I feel like watching a Kubrick movie.” (Who the fuck am I talking to in this stupid hypothetical, anyway?) But I will feel like watching Tigerland, Falling Down, 8MM, etc. again in the future. By the way, I didn't rewatch any of his other films in preparation of this article, so maybe there is an overarching style to his work, but I doubt it.

I may be building Schumacher up a bit too much with all this, but the man did make some very entertaining and rewatchable films. Movies like Tigerland prove he is more than just the guy who ruined Batman for a few years. And honestly, is that such a crime? There will probably be ten more versions of Batman in the next twenty years. At least Schumacher’s was so nuts they decided to take a little break. Perhaps he should be remembered for that.

Why do I own this?

As I stated above, I find Tigerland to be a unique and great Vietnam film, and the Vietnam genre is one of my favorites. So I’m proud to have this in my collection among the likes of Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July, etc.

Random Thoughts

This is one of the first indie movies I ever sought out. I had read about Farrell and wanted to know what the big deal was.

Bozz is such a good character because he's a likable smart ass. That's a tough character to write.

Shea Whigham’s Wilson, on the other hand, is a very easy character to hate.

Clifton Collins, Jr. you will always be Clifton Gonzalez Gonzalez to me.

Some pretty good drill sergeant talk. Since Full Metal Jacket, it's hard for those characters to not sound like an imitation of R. Lee Ermey.

“Maybe, just maybe, you will return one day to play stink finger with little Sally back home.”

Matthew Davis does a good job playing an “aw, shucks” soldier.

For some reason the bar scene in New Orleans always looked ridiculously cheap. I know the movie is low budget, but moments like that make it look a little amateurish. For all I know, that was a real bar, but it sure didn't look cinematic…

“Miter, what are you, twenty years old? Shit. Just cause you wear those sergeant stripes don't mean you ain't gonna die.”

“Just want you to know, I've taken a great disliking to you.”

I guess peeling potatoes in the Army is a real thing. I thought maybe it was just something out of Beetle Bailey or something.

“When did ‘my country right or wrong’ turn into ‘fuck this shit’?”

Perfect role for Michael Shannon: the trainer who gives you the bonus tip of how to shock a prisoner's balls with a field radio.

Michael Shannon's delivery of “worthless sack of shit!” is so fucking angry.

I like the overall style. It's grainy, fluorescent-lit, hand held, etc. It feels documentarian and chaotic. This is why I look at this film as evidence that Schumacher is a skilled director. It just doesn’t seem like he cares much with a lot of his other films.