You may have noticed that I have never written a review of Oliver Stone’s Alexander The Great. This was due to the fact that I had not seen the entire film. When it first opened, I was invited to a private screening in the home of an acquaintance who owns some movie theaters. As a sort of a pre dinner entertainment, selected scenes were shown for an hour during cocktails and were constantly interrupted by introductions and chatter. Although I intended to see it in its entirety, it disappeared from theaters in my area more quickly than I expected leaving me, I thought, unqualified to make a judgment. I have just spent the better part of a day watching the two dvds. I am aware of the facts that my perspective is a rare one and that the academic representation of history was not the purpose of this work. This is meant as entertainment and that is how it should be seen. As entertainment I found it most successful; as to it’s historical accuracy, far better than most. For one who was raised on the sword and sandal epics of the 1940s and 50s, I must appreciate the attempts at accuracy in this production. This was not always so and the attempt alone is laudable. For anyone who studies the 4th century BCE, the images alone are bound to be quite moving. I was stunned to see Babylon as it was, The Macedonian phalanx advancing is a blood chilling sight, and the the pictures of the child Alexander, bittersweet indeed to we who know what is to come. The happy smiling boy on the horse was for me, the saddest image in the film. Write my name as one who loves the man and not the king. Alas, the life of Alexander The Great is not a suitable subject for a movie. I doubt that any life could be adequately recounted in a film and in the case of Alexander, to attempt it is futile. The exigencies of time and money do not allow the whole story to be told and a life with some of its parts missing cannot present a true picture. Oliver Stone did not intend to make a BBC style documentary. He purposely and obviously used facts and fictions to create an entertaining story. If he did not know that Hephaistion died in Ecbatana not Babylon, Robin Lane Fox most certainly did. Both were well aware that Alexander was not present at his friends death when the scene of Hephaistion dying in Babylon with Alexander at his side was included. Clearly, it was too dramatically potent a scene to be sacrificed to accuracy. It is here obviously demonstrated that an entertaining story is to be of prime importance. The film thus becomes an Alexander romance to be enjoyed, but not challenged academically. To do so is to misunderstand the basic purpose of the work. Mr. Stone like Mary Renault, is not an academician, but his contribution to Alexander studies is of significant value as were those of Ms. Renault. The inclusion of the Philotas affair is a good example of how facts must sometimes be sacrificed to the intransigencies of the film making craft. The execution of Philotas and his father, Parmenio is important to understanding the character development of Alexander. This affair usually occupies a full chapter in Alexander biographies. It is a long and complicated sub plot which introduces a lot of otherwise peripheral characters and their interpersonal relationships which would add a lot of unavailable time and money to the production, yet the story is important to understanding Alexander. Mr. Stone introduces an anti historical cup of wine which we are dramatically led to believe is poisoned. There is of course, no poisoned cup in the accepted sources. It has pragmatically been fabricated in order that a more important truth may be included which otherwise could not be. The cup is an erroneous detail which allows for a greater truth and this is after all, an entertainment. It is far more accurate than usual. As a small boy I clearly remember seeing a movie in which Lana Turner played a priestess of Baal. As he turned her back to the cameras and raised her arms to an obviously plaster idol she revealed a long silver zipper all the way down the back of her gown. Even as a child I sniggered at that one. Things have gotten better. The extras no longer wear wristwatches and the fanciful stories have become peppered here and there with facts. I’m glad Oliver Stone made this film and I applaud him for it. It is these romances which inspire the young. Many shall read about Alexander, some shall study seriously, a few shall devote their lives to Alexander Studies and Alexander shall continue for yet another generation. The life of Alexander is far to large to make into an accurate film or even an accurate book and I am certain Oliver Stone knew this from the start. Those of us who study this spectacular life know all too well the legions of books which over the years, form themselves in ranks upon our bookshelves. They proliferate for a reason, the story was left unfinished. On a June night in Babylon 323 years before the birth of Christ, Alexander The Great became an enigma which over the millennia has never been solved. This is the only solid truth; the rest is but a romance. If sailors in The Mediterranean to this day shout to the storms Alexander lives and reigns, it is because of things like this. Thank you Mr. Stone.