As a teenager, I saw the movie on first release. I recall an adult co-worker at the time sneering at my choice, as though I was lacking in artistic refinement. Well, maybe I was then and still am now. But seeing it again for the first time in 50 years, i still think it's a darn good movie. Of course, there are aspects I can appreciate or criticize now that I couldn't then.One good point, is the staging. Note how many shots are staged outdoors, as would be expected of life in ancient times where there were few buildings to retreat to. I especially like the constant use of statuary to impart a period flavor that also makes for scenic settings. For another, each scene is tightly edited and never gets boring, unlike most historical dramas which seem to favor long-winded speeches that emphasize dialogue over pacing and rhetoric over meaning. Instead each scene, even when it doesn't drive the story forward, never palls.Burton's simply terrific as the son who starts out trying to prove himself to his dad and Athens and ends up trying to prove himself to the world and history, and pretty much succeeds on all counts. It's a demanding role that not many actors could fulfill. But this is still early in Burton's career, before he meets Elizabeth, and before his imposing manner and sonorous delivery turns into cooked ham. Whenever I hear his name, this is the movie I like to reference. Still and all, the screenplay appears unsure what to do with Claire Bloom's character, and as a result, her presence as a marquee name seems wasted.The battle scenes are well mounted, which is not too difficult when you've got what looks like the whole Spanish army at your disposal. On the other hand, the combat sequences are surprisingly brief with a lot of generally pointless milling around. Also, we don't get much sense of Alexander's ability to maneuver his troops which must have been formidable, given his string of successes. There's the usual drama of rivalry and intrigue that always seems to swirl around the seats of power, ancient or modern. Alexander sure has a lousy home life. Dad hates Mom and Mom hates Dad, while Dad and Son can't trust each other, power over the world being at stake. Plus, Son never knows what Mom might be plotting. No wonder Alex wants to get out of the house, big time. Still, the screenplay combines the personal story with the drive for empire in effective fashion. However, note how few close-ups there are of any of the players, even the leads, but especially the supporting players. I'm not sure why, but this has the effect of diluting some of the intrigue because many of the key participants remain hard to identify, at least they were for me. What really surprises me is that the guiding hand behind the project belongs not to a big- budget movie-maker, but to a specialist in film-noir, Robert Rossen. It's hard to think of a category further removed from Technicolor spectacle than intimate black&white, but Rossen somehow brings it off. My one real complaint are the final few scenes where the screenplay appears to pander to modern religious beliefs. Now, I don't know Alexander's actual beliefs, but I doubt they were of the later monotheist type that the screenplay clearly conveys. Looks to me like another instance of box-office trumping historical accuracy, a not unknown trade- off in Hollywood history, even if it does make the man himself more acceptable to audiences.Anyway, in my little book, the movie succeeds better than most historical epics. And even 50 years later, I still think my co-worker was wrong.

Terrible. Why did so many major directors become a cropper when faced with fancy dress? Or more specifically, with swords and sandals and all things pertaining to the Bible. And how could so many good actors turn into shop-front dummies or develop the personalities of automatons when cast in this kind of drivel? Chewing the scenery was never an option since the scenery was always bigger than they were.Here, the director becoming a cropper was Robert Rossen, (this was the nadir of an on-again, off-again career), and the actors following suit include Richard Burton, (in a blonde wig and very little else, as Alexander), Fredric March, Claire Bloom and Danielle Darrieux, who still manages to crawl out of this cess-pit of a movie smelling of roses, while a stock-pile of familiar British faces, (Harry Andrews, Peter Cushing, Barry Jones, Stanley Baker et al), play sundry Greeks and Persians. As a history lesson it would send any sixth grader to sleep, (you have to wait an eternity just to get a decent battle). I've always felt the recent Oliver Stone version was mightily under-valued. Compared to this, it's a bloody masterpiece!

Robert Rossen is one of the directors whose career was going well when the blacklist hit, and he found himself in a tailspin. After "Johnny O'Clock", "Body And Soul", and "All The King's Men" Rossen seemed headed for major directing work. Then came the blacklist. In the years of Senator McCarthy Rossen did two projects, "The Brave Bulls" and "Alexander The Great". Then he began regaining his stride with "They Came To Cordura" and finally the film we really recall him for: "The Hustler". But he left a relatively small body of movies, and we can only marvel at the less than ten titles it includes.This was (unless you count the fictional "They Came To Cordura") the only history film in his work, and it was done in Europe. In fact, of the leads, only one (Fredric March) is American. It is (like all Rossen's work) impressive to look at - he was a master at composition of figures on the screen. Look at the sequence of the assassination of Philip of Macedon. Philip leaves a crowd that remains on the outskirts and ascends steps to a temple. A figure darts out and attacks and kills him. The fate of the character (although there has been a morbidity about Philip since the film began) is re-enforced by the way death seems to reach out an knock him down. As I said, the film is very impressive to see.I stress this last scene of March's because his Philip has more going for him in the movie than it's erstwhile central figure. Alexander was his father's rival (egged on by his mother as Richard the Lion Hearted is egged on by his mother in "The Lion In Winter"). But Philip is more of a superstitious type than Henry II of England. He is aware that his son is needed as an heir to complete Philip's dream (uniting the Greek state under Macedonian sovereignty into a single power). But he is aware that the signs suggest his heir is going to be his great rival and destroyer (like the Greek Gods led by Zeus overthrew their father Chronus). March's wife, the clever and deadly Olympias (Danielle Darrieux) knows how to push March's buttons about his fears, and March finally does what Henry II threatens to do - divorce his wife and marry again - and breed new "better" sons. It seals his death warrant - Olympias will not tolerate a rival on Philip's throne.March therefore has a more interesting role than (curiously) Burton as Alexander. I know that sounds strange, but March's personal turmoil is much more interesting to consider and watch. Historically, Philip is frequently overlooked because of his son's stunning military achievements against Persia, and his empire building, but Philip actually was a clever monarch. Interestingly enough, while Alexander's body was eventually buried in a beautiful tomb in Alexandria, Egypt, the tomb has not been found by archaeologists. But twenty years ago Philip's remains were found in Macedonia. Philip, in a sense, has survived his son.After March leaves the scene, Burton becomes the center of attention - his role in taking over Greece rapidly replaced by his role in bringing down the old Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius I, and Xerxes (see "The Three Hundred Spartans"). Possibly too much is by-passed - the heroic attempts of the last great democrat of Athens, Demosthenes (Michael Hordern), to stop this juggernaut threatening Greeks's city states, is seen too quickly. The confrontation with Darius III (Harry Andrews) is handled too quickly too - not quite the monarch his ancestors who invaded Greece were, his defeat and death are tragic and deserving of deeper plumbing. Rossen decides to concentrate on Alexander and his role of building that empire that stretched from the Nile to the Ganges - one of history's most astounding military achievements. Certain quasi-legendary events are shown - the cutting of the "Gordian Knot" for example. The corrupting influence of the growth of Alexander's power is shown too, up to his premature death. He was an "aged" 33 when he left the scene.What would he have done if he lived into old age? Would he have noticed on the western boundaries of his empire those two peculiar states, Carthage and Rome? His relations with the Jews in Jerusalem and the Holy Land were quite good (for a change the Jews realized it would make sense not to fight such a powerful invader - in fact to this day Jewish families live up to an agreement with the Greeks to allow their sons, occasionally, to bear the name of "Alexander", the one non-Jewish name allowed). Would Alexander have used Greek culture to unify the entire ancient world? Or would the relative decadence of the Persian world have undermined his plans? A ten year reign some twenty three hundred years ago that is still remembered, is astounding. But where would it have ended?

Alexander the Great set out with an army in 334 BC to conquer the world and had just about conquered double what was known of western civilization at the time. Had he not died at the age of 33 touching on the borders of current India, who knows what might have happened.Richard Burton with years of classical training behind him plays Alexander as the charismatic prince of Macedonia who arouses both the admiration and jealousy of his father Philip played by Fredric March.The relationship between Philip and Alexander is what drives the film. The problems between them are not to unusual to more modern monarchies. The crown prince is always a rival source of power, by dint of his position he gets his own personal followers and that is always of concerned to the king.In addition Philip is in doubt about his kid's paternity, doubt encouraged by his wife Danielle Darrieux, sick and tired of his infidelities.As played by March, Philip is a parvenu, leading a warrior state and a man of little learning. He remedies that for his son by getting the best teacher around for him in Aristotle, played by Barry Jones. Aristotle gives Alexander the culture that Philip lacks and instills in him a belief of the superiority of Greek Culture against the rest of the world and it was his duty to spread it. Doesn't that ever sound familiar.When Philip is assassinated, Alexander succeeds him and after securing the backing of the seven leading cities of Greece he moves east and south in an expedition of conquest. Burton's performance is grand because in his speech and in his closeups you see all the various forces at work in Alexander, the idealism, the egoism, the arrogance, it's all there in various mixtures at any given time of the film.The open homosexuality that characterized the production of Alexander in 2005 is not present in this film. The film does show Alexander's associates to be male which was not uncommon in Greek society back in the day and that women were there to breed, nothing more. Of course they were something more in terms of their own agendas as Danielle Darrieux plainly shows. Might be a good idea to view both films back to back and see just how The Code affected productions back in 1956.