Let me give my 1 cent worth. There are several objectives, I believe, and I will list the most important to the least ...Originally posted by oscar jubis
The main concern regarding the structure of the film was mentioned by arsaib and anduril. Why did Mr. Stone and his collaborators chose to interrupt showing us how Alexander came to power, opting to flashback to Phillip's assassination during the final hour? Maybe one of the posters lauding this picture can tell us what was gained by it?
(1) By opting for a flashback scene nearer the end rather than in a chronological order, Oliver allows the audience to feel in two ways -- what happens if the King indeed was assassinated by OTHERS? Would that have "answered" how Alexander was behaving now? -- and what happens if I quickly flashback to tell you that Olympias, or even Alexander might be a partner in crime? Would that have "changed" your original feeling of why Alexander was behaving as such now? IF Oliver had opted for a chronological order, the audience would simply have the mindset that Alexander should behave as though he was guilt driven and hysterical ... By doing the flashback, Oliver sought to achieve the "wow and enlightenment" effect (like in a mystery/thriller film), now I understand why better ...
(2) It allowed a parallel of the mutiny scene and the overthrowing of King Philip by the assassinators/rebels ...
(3) It let you wonder about the repetition of history ... the circle of life ...
(4) It makes you wonder, is there such a thing as retribution ...
(5) This is simply UNINTENTIONAL ... critics or audience at times try to CREDIT the director too much ... ha ha ha
e.g. the blizzard scene in House of Flying Daggers was compelled by nature (an early snowstorm). It was NOT planned in advance nor was it in the script. However, I like the scene a lot and thought it helped convey the moods and emotions VERY well ...
that's all
;PPP
Bookmarks