A Brief History
On January 14, 2005, the big budget Hollywood film, Alexander, starring Colin Farrell in the title role made its debut in Italy, after having opened previously in November of 2004 in the U.S. A lavish film with a budget of $155 million, the film was successful in that its box office worldwide was over $167 million, but was it real history or just Hollywood?
Digging Deeper
Released in the original theatrical form, DVD versions were later released as “Director’s Cut,” “Final Cut,” and “Ultimate Cut” giving movie and history buffs an opportunity to sample different versions of the film. In fact, Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut released in 2007 sold a whopping 1 million copies while previous DVD versions sold over 3.5 million units.
Known for taking liberties with actual history in order to condense years of events into a 2 hour film, Hollywood can be forgiven some of its artistic license taken with the subject of Alexander the Great (aka Alexander III of Macedon) as the historical record of this great king and conqueror was written over 200 years after his death in 323 BCE. Contemporary accounts of Alexander and his reign have been lost, and at least as of now never recovered, leaving one to wonder how much of the “factual” history is indeed true and how much of what we think we know is legend or conjecture.
Clinging to the legend as much as to fact, critics have taken exception to the film’s adherence to “true” history. A group of Greek lawyers threatened to sue Warner Brothers and the director, Oliver Stone, over the portrayal of Alexander and his inner circle as indulging in homosexual behavior. In fact, Stone blamed a weak US box office performance on backlash against the homosexual innuendo by prudish audiences and critics.
The necessary condensation of time caused chronological inconsistencies with some of Alexander’s famous battles, and historical characters such as Darius III (of the Persians) and Alexander’s general Philotas were portrayed as young men when at the point in history being portrayed in the film they were mature middle aged men. A famous battle at Hydaspes is shown as being fought on a sunny day in a forest, when the actual battle was fought on a muddy plain at night in the rain. Alexander is shown suffering an arrow wound in that battle, when historically that wound came month later in a different battle. The film also merges major battles at Granicus and Issus into the Battle of Gaugamela in an apparent attempt to pay tribute to each of these battles in one cinematic event. In fact, it took Alexander’s army several hard fought battles over a campaign to defeat the Persians while the film implies one major battle accomplished the feat. The Persian/Bactrian woman taken by Alexander as a bride, Roxana, is played by an exotic appearing Rosario Dawson, a dark haired, dark skinned actress of Puerto Rican and Cuban descent with African heritage, while the real life Roxana was of fairer complexion and of considerably different appearance. Modern Iranians were rankled by the portrayal of Persian armies as a mob or rabble, while the Macedonian/Greeks are portrayed as highly disciplined professional soldiers. In fact, the Persians were clad in uniforms and had similar military professionalism.
Another historical criticism of the film is the portrayal of Alexander as a blonde haired, blue eyed man, contrary to the modern traits of Greeks and Macedonians being of darker hair and complexion. In fact, historical records as they are indicate that Alexander was of fair or even ruddy complexion and had either blue eyes or one brown and one blue eye. His hair may well have been lighter than commonly found in the region today, as in the centuries since Alexander’s life much ethnic mixing of North African and Middle Eastern peoples as well as those from what is modern Afghanistan, Pakistan and India had taken place.
With an unreliable historical record, it is hard to hold Hollywood to a strict accounting of the life of Alexander the Great. Unfortunately, that did not stop numerous critics from blasting the alleged “historical” inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the film. Obviously, such a film cannot be considered a documentary and should not be viewed as a factual record. After all, every word of the dialogue is made up as no record exists of what was said by whom. We liked the film as entertainment, and we welcome your opinions about it as well.
Question for students (and subscribers): Did you find this film useful for understanding the life and character of Alexander the Great? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
Stone, Oliver, dir. Alexander, Revisited: The Final Cut (Two-Disc Special Edition). WarnerBrothers, 2008. DVD.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="12724 https://www.historyandheadlines.com/?p=12724">47 Comments
Most historical movies, “bend the truth.” Most movies wouldn’t be as much of a hit as they are without the producers “bending the truth.” A movie that’s “based off a true story” may only have few actual true references in the movie.
Although most historical movies are not always the most factual they do bring in a giant amount of viewrs. I do believe that we cannot fault historical movies for not always give all the facts or changing the facts a little for the fact that I am sure the facts that historians have given us have changed over the years and every story is told a different way.
Directors need to bend the truth when making a motion picture based on history to bring in a bigger fan base. It’s all about the money
The thing with historical movies is that they bend the truth just as some of the other have said. We cant tell for sure what had happened because we weren’t there to witness it for ourselves
Sure the movie is not the most accurate depiction of Alexander the Great’s conquests, but it made money and that is what it was intended for. People do not go to the theaters to view documentaries. So if the audience learns something in the process of watching this film, even if the details are a little blurred, that is just an added bonus.
Interesting article. I haven’t seen the movie myself, but i’ve heard on a few occasions that it wasn’t very good.
I understand that this movie was made for Hollywood rather than the history buffs that are pointing out its flaws, but some of these mistakes are just unforgivable. For example, changing which battle Alexander received his battle wound is unnecessary and uncalled for. Also, the directors had to have known the type of audience they would draw in and know that and should have made the film as accurate as possible.
There is nothing wrong with including homosexuality in a movie, but man, there was just way too much in this one. At least for me, it distracted me often from what was going on in the movie because I just kept wondering why it was happening so much. The convoluted timeline was also a huge distraction. The film was extremely hard to follow and way too long.
I personally enjoyed this film. It was not meant to be a historical film for the records or documentary, it was meant for entertainment. It did its job it was entertaining. A film like this may peak peoples interest in the subject matter of Alexander and cause them to look further into it and therefor discover the historical inaccuracies. Otherwise audiences should not be using this movie as a reference, just for entertainment. It gives life and an entertaining story to a great historical figure.
I like this film because it was made to have entertainment value. It was not meant to be totally historically accurate which is ok. The producers obviously had a huge budget as the effects, casting and technology was incredible in this movie. The thing that I did not like as much compared to the 1956 movie was the fact that this movie did not occur in chronological order. Throughout the movie it would constantly jump back and forth in flashbacks and made it confusing at times for the viewer to understand the context.
Movies bend the truth about many things. They want to entertain people not inform them about every little thing. They want it to be exciting so they don’t always have the most accurate information.
I agree that this was a hollywood movie and they exaggerated some of what happened in the film and I thought it was more for entertainment than historically correct
It was mostly a flashback type of movie which made it confusing for the viewer. Some of the battles were a bit exaggerated and definitely showed more of a mother-son relationship compared to the 1956 film of the father-son relationship.
Hollywood can’t always going along with what happened in history it would not please the viewers if there wasn’t enough action or interesting enough to keep their attention. So when things are based off a true story it does not mean that it is a factual movie.
Taking into consideration that this film was only 2 hours, I believe it was made quite nicely. Having to condense such an immense lifetime of someone who was very influential into a 2 hour film is impressive. There is not much Hollywood could have done regarding the factuality because any record of Alexander was written 200 years after his death in 323 BCE.
I wasn’t the biggest fan of this movie because it jumped from event to event and was very difficult to follow. Although it was intended to be more action driven than some of the actual events of Alexander’s life may have been, I think that they should have made it a bit more historically accurate.
If your’e going to make a movie that is based off of historical events, the least you can do is try to be as historically accurate as possible and not just do whatever you want with smaller details while keeping larger aspects accurate.
I feel like the movie struggled in the United States had to do with more than just prude viewers. The movie was very scattered and it was difficult to understand what was going on for much of the film.
You cant believe everything you see in the movie industry, it is made for entertainment, of course much of it is embellished.
The homosexual curiosities of Alexander seemed to be emphasized more in this retelling of Alexander’s life than in the original sources. Yes, Hephaestion was important to Alexander, and they were probably lovers. But was Alexander REALLY spending his final hours with an Indian man-servant who he made out with following a “riveting dance?”
Movies are not meant to be totally accurate all the time. The main goal for these production is to tell a story that is well known in a compelling way that people will want to spend a lot of money on to watch. Many times movies fail to make the money for the studio but they are still able to give their audiences an interesting story.
I don’t understand why Greek lawyers threaten to sue the movie company for portraying homosexual behavior in the film if that was an actual thing in ancient Greece.
This movie was entertaining at times but sometimes hard to follow. I have no problem with there being debate about the historical accuracies because it is hard to know exactly what happened during this time period. I did have a problem with the flashbacks and then flash forwards. I think it would have been cool if the movie went in chronological order from the beginning.
I felt that this version of the film was confusing by going back and forth in time and added a lot of effects to make it more appealing to the audience. I agree that there are some historical inaccuracies in the movie, but it does give the viewers insight into the lives on Alexander and his army.
This version of the film was all over the place and left the viewer confused. Movies are meant for entertainment, and being historically accurate may take away from some of that “entertainment”
I absolutely hated the way this movie jumped around. I can’t imagine being able to actually follow the story if I had no previous knowledge of Alexander’s life. This may not have been as “Hollywood” as 300, but it was definitely “Hollywood”.
This film really does provide quality entertainment, but that is about as far as that goes. I am not locked into this film for historical purposes, just simply to see some good drama and action. In order to truly be invested in it, you would have to be quite attentive to the many directions it took throughout.
I think it is silly to watch these movies expecting to get the “real” or “true” historical recitation. These films are adaptations of adaptations. They are meant to send a specific message about an interpretation of a period in time. The fun is trying to figure out what that message is!
I think it is interesting to take into account the possible Western bias being described by modern Iranians. Whereas other historical inaccuracies can be brushed aside as the director taking liberties with the medium of film, Stone’s depiction of the Persian army carries with it an undeniable implicit bias.
This film was painfully slow. The screenwriting was weak. The acting was not believable. Plus they tried to be cute by presenting events out of order, but that didn’t contribute to making the movie any better (or less worse). I would sooner watch the 1956 Alexander the Great film twice than watch this one again.
Hollywood for sure beefed up the content of this film. However, as I have not seen it, I do not know the degree. All accounts of Alexander have some sort of storytelling element to it, and this movie is no exception.
As always when it comes to movies, Hollywood tries to make the most money by adding in content and stories in order to make the story seem better. I have not seen this version so I do not know how much Hollywood decided to add in to it, but most movies about historic figures are somewhat fabricated to make money at the box offices.
It is important to remember the distinction between film as entertainment and film as educational material. Not all film is trying to be 100% accurate, and in the case of any film about Alexander the Great, it is almost impossible due to lack of primary source information.
Having seen this film you can really tell some of the details are added strictly for entertainment, which can be expected especially as they get more modern. However, it was a very good movie.
It is interesting to see the different depictions of Alexander
I find that the older version of the movie was better. Even though I never really watched this one, I just know that many actors and actresses got worst actor/actress of the year award due to this movie. This makes me unmotivated to see this version.
I have viewed, and very much enjoyed this movie. I think if you take it for what it is, a Hollywood film, and not expect a historical documentary, you’d be much more please with the film. It is entertainment and ere for needs to be entertaining. Nobody wants to watch and army take month to march acrossed Persia.
the movies still has to make money so changing history is something they have to do
Homosexuality was not viewed the same as it is today in Ancient Greece and Rome. I’m not saying that it is true or not that Alexander had relations with men, but back then it was not shameful to have sex with another man. The stigma was actually against being in the submissive sex position. I think that it was an interesting bit of creative license Hollywood took, including intimate scenes between Alexander and other men.
I find it humorous that these movie critics took so much offense to the “inaccuracy” of an action film. Not a documentary film. If they want to make a fuss about inaccuracies, why don’t they just read the news.
Have to take a grain of salt with anything that comes out of Hollywood.
I think a lot of people take film to always be truth and 100% accurate; people should really understand that everything in film is not 100% accurate or even real.
people twist the plot and the details of the actual event to make it more interesting
If time was the issue and is what caused the inaccuracies then why didn’t they make it a two part film? or a series even? That was at least it could be credible and more detailed.
It’s funny that some of the movie critics were upset that the movie wasn’t completely accurate. It was an action movie, not a documentary.
This was one of my favorite movies! reading all of the things that they changed though upsets me. Yes movies are never true to the real story but they could’ve tried to stick as close to it! i never knew this stuff when i watched the movie the first few times 🙁
Movies now-a-days aren’t meant to be dead on accurate. They try to impress a target audience, which typically involves a lot of action and altering of facts to make it more interesting.