Thursday, January 06, 2005

Stone admits to letting Alexander down

I noticed the post to rogueclassicist's blog about an interview with Oliver Stone and his reaction to the storm of criticism that has followed the release of "Alexander". Although Stone is claiming he made a mistake with that film, the explanation he gives is still casting blame on a public looking for "black and white" heroes. He still does not seem to recognize the fact that he failed to explore Alexander's genius as well as his shortcomings in the film and did not depict Alexander's motivations sufficiently to give the film a recognizable theme.

Telegraph : "suggest that the American audience, embroiled in its war on terror, perhaps wanted to see a swashbuckling hero on screen. They did not empathise with Stone's depiction of a tortured soul. They might have dealt more easily with a graphic sex scene than with the smouldering desire and the longing looks that Stone staged between the two men.

Stone warms to the idea. 'Young boys, they wanted a warrior and nothing else. They did not want to see a man with vulnerabilities.' He ponders for a moment. 'It has a lot to do with the war in Iraq,' he says finally. 'There is something very strange going on in this country at the moment. It is like the whole value system has gone awry. We want only clearly defined heroes and villains, no subtleties in between.'

Stone, it seems, has been a victim of fate. And not for the first time. The man whose anti-war Born on the Fourth of July was released on the day America invaded Panama, now finds that, when he makes a film depicting a thoughtful, some would say too hesitant, leader, it is released when America most wants vindication for its war in Iraq.

Stone shrugs: 'I can't help the timing of wars.' "