A Brief History
On January 5, 1956, producers and editors of the major Hollywood motion picture, Alexander the Great, starring Richard Burton in the title role, were hard at work preparing the movie for its March 22, 1956 release, cutting its running time from over 3 hours to 135 minutes.
Digging Deeper
The film is of course about the great Macedonian King and conqueror who ruled an enormous empire carved out of the Middle East and Mediterranean by his own leadership between 336 and 323 BCE. During his reign, Alexander defeated the great Persian Empire and all others that stood in his path, perhaps the most successful military leader of all time (at least until Genghis Khan).
The film starts predictably at the time of Alexander’s birth, the son of the Macedonian King Phillip II and Olympias. Olympias angers her husband by claiming Alexander is a “god born of a god” and animosity toward his young son starts immediately. Advisors counsel the King to allow the boy to grow up and become his heir, which Phillip reluctantly does. Alexander is shown being tutored by the great scholar Aristotle, and eventually takes his place beside his father in battle.
When Phillip ditches Olympias for a new wife, the gulf between King and son grows to a new level. Alexander secures his place in succession by having a friend murder Phillip, upon which Alexander declares himself King and has his friend executed.
The new King Alexander goes on to attack and defeat Babylon and Persia, and on the way encounters the fabled Gordian knot which he is challenged to untie. In typical brash fashion, Alexander cuts the knot with his sword. His success causes him to believe the hype his mother created by declaring himself a “son of a God” and his army marches to India.
A drunken Alexander murders his closest friend, Cleitus, over an argument and is not the same man since. Alexander retreats from India back to Babylon, marries Roxane at Susa, and dies soon afterward of an unknown illness. On his deathbed, Alexander is asked to whom he leaves his kingdom, to which he replies, “To the strongest.”
Charlton Heston was originally offered the starring role, but turned it down. Oddly enough, the producers were criticized for picking Burton because of his age (29), although Alexander ruled from age 20 to age 32. Apparently Burton seemed older than he actually was. A stunning film visually, with rich period sets and costumes, the film had a massive budget (for the time) of $4 million, and only grossed a box office of $2.5 million. The movie was not an audience favorite, with a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 3.5 out of 10 audience approval. Nevertheless, the film was nominated for a Directors Guild of America Award in 1957.
In terms of historical accuracy, one notable error is that both Alexander and Aristotle are seen with books bound in the modern way. In reality, in their time all books were in scroll form.
Of course, being such an enormous Historical figure, Alexander has been the subject of many other motion pictures. Question for students (and subscribers): Which one is your favorite? 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…
Rossen, Robert, dir. Alexander the Great. MGM (Video & DVD), 2004. DVD.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="12571 https://www.historyandheadlines.com/?p=12571">46 Comments
I find it odd that Alexander said he would leave his kingdom “to the strongest” how would the people know who the strongest was and what if Alexander would not consider the person they chose to be the strongest? I feel he should have known who he wanted to take over his kingdom after he had passed.
I have never seen the motion picture! I definitely need to see how accurate (or not) this movie is compared to actual historical accounts.
How could Alexander just leave his kingdom to Chance like that is what confuses me. its almost like he was just giving it up and didn’t seem to care what happened to it
If the one of the most notable historical error from this film is that they had books rather than scrolls, I’d stay that is pretty good.
It was pretty impressive how they filmed the movie with intense battle scenes without much help of the technology they had.
I think that Alexander was very full of himself. Yes he was able to conquer large amounts of land, but to believe that you are truly the son of a god is a little much. Also, to come that conclusion after “untying” the knot by cutting the rope is very cocky in my opinion.
It’s funny how much more historically accurate this film was than the new one. The thing I noticed about it was that there was no music in the background for most of the movie. It felt more like I was watching a filmed play. Very different from movies today.
Alexander’s belief that he was son of a god was obviously started at a young age by his mother. She constantly talked him up and up his confidence. If she had not done this would he have believed himself so wonderful and invincible? Would he have still had all the glorious achievements that he had at such a young age?
For a 1956 film, the producers really did a great job with creating an interesting account of Alexander’s life and did an exceptional job at showing the struggles, both personal and public, that he encountered along the way. The film shows you that he often struggled with decisions about his father and mother and also had a drinking problem which caused him to make poor, dangerous decisions. I like how it went in chronological order also because it was helpful to the viewer to have a better understanding of his life.
I think that Alexander was cocky and looked at himself as better than he was. He would conquer major masses of land and thought he was the best ever.
After watching the film in class i thought it did a good job showing his relationship with his father as well as showing two of the battles Alexander fought in
The story that the movie told was more concrete than the 21st century film. The relationship between Alexander and Philip was well played and explained. My only complaint would have been that it only showed two of Alexander’s battles and he was defined by many more.
Alexander should have been more selective about who was taking over his kingdom after he died. I feel like he should have kept the kingdom more centralized rather than splitting it again.
One notable error is that both Alexander and Aristotle are seen with books bound in the modern way. I would have never picked up on this error. I feel it is not relevant to the historical aspect of the film.
Alexander was taught from an early age that he was son of a god and should be treated as such by his mother. Although it started there it was continually instilled in his mind by others. I think the video also did a very good job of depicting the relationship between Alexander and his father.
What’s up with people always killing their parent(s) just to become leader? It almost always comes full circle and people are too obsessed with power.
The 1956 movie of Alexander the Great was much better than its 2004 version, which I found to be pretty terrible. The 1956 version also did have an impressive amount of extras.
I wouldnt have even noticed the error with the modern books but it really makes since !
The 1956 movie was more true to the sources of Alexander than more modern disgraces of cinema. Also, it is interesting that the main inaccuracy is the binding of the books.
Alexander the Great, the 1956 version, was my favorite. This was mostly due to the fact that the 2004 version was incredibly weird, long, hard to follow, and poorly acted.
The 1956 film of Alexander the Great was definitely much better than the 2004 one. Although it did not receive the audience response it was waiting for, it did a superior job in all aspects.
The 1956 version of the film was much better than the 2004 version starring Collin Ferrell. I felt that the 2004 movie was over acted and too long for me to understand completely. The 1956 version went in chronological order which was also way better than the 2004 version going back and forth in time periods.
I agree with my fellow peers that the 1956 version was much better than the 2004 version about Alexander the Great. I like that the film depicts Alexanders accomplishments as well as some of his poor life choices, such as getting drunk and killing Cleitus.
I thought this version was better, simply due to how bad the more modern one is.
I honestly wasn’t a huge fan of either Alexander movies. It would have been interesting to see 3 hour cut of the film though. Alexander might not have lived very long, but he definitely did enough in his life to make a pretty long movie.
I think with such conflicting views on how Alexander carried himself on a daily basis, these films show so much variance. Also, the dramatization of his role is very evident in the more recent film. I honestly think I enjoyed the older version based on its natural acting style.
Having seen this film, it is definitely a classic. Maybe not up there with The Ten Commandments, but it is a must see. It’s so interesting to compare and contract the filmography and historiography with that of the more recent films about Alexander and the ancient Greeks.
I felt that the 1956 film told a better story overall than the 2004 film did, whereas the 2004 film gave displayed greater detail regarding Alexander’s motivations and emotional relationships.
I greatly preferred this version to the 2004 catastrophe. The story was much better told. If you want a cinematic rendition of Alexander’s life, this 1956 version is the one I would recommend.
I honestly have never seen a movie based on Alexander the Great. With so many good ones out there I will have to here soon!
It was great to get the chance to watch some of longer and older version of an Alexander movie for a college class. I would love to sit down and watch this version as well.
Critics are always going to find something to nitpick. It could have been worse.
I was able to watch some of the older versions of Alexander movies and it was awesome to see what his life may have been like. Would love to see the others to get a few more accounts of who he really was.
The older styles of the movies really add to Alexander’s legacy
I remember watching a few clips from this movie. I believe this was the one where Alexander took his troops into battle and was giving a very morale boosting speech. I hope to be able to get my hands on the full movie and see it all.
Having never seen the original movie I cannot really speak to it. I have seen the newer rendition and enjoyed it very much. The budget for the original movie sounds like it was huge for the day. So i can imagine it wasnt a terrible movie for the time.
No matter how new or old it is im sure the people who made it did what they thought was best to make it as accurate as possible.
It seems like a pretty cool movie, but I have never seen it. It would be cool to see the strained relationship between Alexander and his father, and his interactions with Aristotle.
I find it interesting that even in ancient times mothers were known to talk up their children. “His success causes him to believe the hype his mother created by declaring himself a “son of a God” and his army marches to India.”
Loved the more modern takes in film on Alexander, will have to give this a watch sometime.
This movie seems like it would be rather good, maybe I’ll watch it one day
some of these types of movies interest me so maybe i would like this one!
This movie seems interesting, I’ll have to watch it.
I’ve seen the modern version about Alexander but never the original, it has a large budget for the time and seems like it’d be good.
I have never seen this older movie but i have seen the newer one and it is one of my favorite movies to this day!
Seems like a pretty good movie. The older movies are always better than the remakes. They usually have less attempts at making it as action packed as possible and stick to the actual story