20 Years In the past, Colin Farrell Led A Field Workplace Flop Of Historic Proportions

(Welcome to Tales from the Field Workplace, our column that examines field workplace miracles, disasters, and the whole lot in between, in addition to what we will be taught from them.)

“All of us had our tuxedos prepared. I am not even joking,” Colin Farrell mentioned in a 2023 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, reflecting on the 2004 historic epic “Alexander,” directed by Oliver Stone. “We have been all like, ‘Proper, lads, we’re off to the Oscars. This can be a certain factor.’ After which it got here out.”

It got here out, certainly, and as alluded to by the Oscar-nominated actor (not for this film, it must be famous), issues did not precisely go as deliberate. Within the aftermath of Ridley Scott’s Greatest Image-winning “Gladiator,” Stone lastly had the chance to scrape collectively funding for his three-hour tackle Alexander the Nice. The timing appeared excellent. The forged was a assassin’s row. The manufacturing had all the assets on the earth at its disposal. However by nearly each measure, the result was nothing shy of an epic catastrophe.

On this week’s Tales from the Field Workplace, we’re trying again at “Alexander” in honor of its twentieth anniversary. We’ll go over the movie’s lengthy journey to display, how issues got here collectively within the aftermath of “Gladiator,” what occurred throughout the grand manufacturing, what occurred when the film hit theaters, the aftermath of the theatrical launch, and what classes we will be taught from all of it these years later. Let’s dig in, lets?

The movie facilities on the famed historical Macedonian normal Alexander the Nice (Farrell), who turns into King and leads a years-long marketing campaign of warfare. He faces large armies in Persia, Afghanistan, and India, with the legendary determine conquering a lot of the world within the course of. The movie is at the least partially impressed by a nonfiction e-book known as “Alexander the Nice” by historian Robin Lane Fox. As this stuff go, liberties have been taken alongside the way in which.

Context is necessary right here. As a result of “Gladiator” was such a important and industrial success, it was simpler for an A-list director to pitch one thing lower from the same material. It hardly issues that films like 1999’s “The thirteenth Warrior” have been large field workplace bombs. These films are at all times huge dangers, however Hollywood is huge on making an attempt to emulate success.

Stone, coming off of his 1999 soccer drama “Any Given Sunday,” was arguably on the top of his powers as a director, if not near it. He had lengthy eyed a possible Alexander the Nice biopic and noticed a possibility to lastly make it occur. Talking with the BBC in 2004, the filmmaker defined that the model he had been growing years earlier with Val Kilmer within the lead by no means fairly got here collectively. He additionally wasn’t prepared for the duty as a director in these earlier days.

“I could not have accomplished this story after I needed to do it 15 years in the past [with Val Kilmer]. I then wrote a script in 1996 on the Greek Island of Mykonos. It was Tom Cruise who needed to play Alexander on the time, however I did not just like the script after which form of gave up.”

One other necessary factor to notice is that, on the time, Baz Luhrmann (“Moulin Rouge!”) was growing his personal Alexander the Nice film with Leonardo DiCaprio (“Titanic”) and Mel Gibson (“Braveheart”) hooked up to star. So there was a ticking clock at play right here.

Finally, Stone cobbled collectively financing from a number of manufacturing firms, with Warner Bros. on board to distribute the movie in North America. So far as casting goes, Colin Farrell (“Minority Report,” “Cellphone Sales space”), who was one of many hottest stars within the enterprise on the time, nabbed the lead position. Farrell, at the moment, was additionally recognized for his off-screen conduct — significantly his substance use.

The ensemble additionally included a homicide’s row of expertise, with Angelina Jolie (“Woman, Interrupted”), Val Kilmer (“The Saint”), Anthony Hopkins (“Pink Dragon”), and Rosario Dawson (“The Rundown”) starring alongside Farrell. Stone had a ridiculously big $155 million finances to work with, which might be like having a $255 million finances in in the present day’s {dollars}, making it irresponsibly costly. However Stone tried to place the cash on display, filming on three totally different continents throughout the six-month manufacturing. That included utilizing actual elephants and coping with Farrell breaking his leg in an off-set accident.

Stone additionally employed specialists equivalent to Robin Lane Fox from Oxford College to attempt to infuse some historic accuracy into the movie. In a 2024 video for Invicta, historian Dr. Roel Konijnendijk gave credit score the place credit score is due, saying “Alexander” nailed the accuracy of the battle scenes.

“The way in which it appears is frankly unequalled. There is no different film that does this a lot to attempt to painting the formations as they really appeared…The advisers on this film have been actually a crack group of students…As a result of the director actually gave them loads of leeway and listened to them, the result’s essentially the most correct when it comes to its faithfulness to the sources. Probably the most correct depiction of historical fight that we now have.”

On the identical time, a bunch of Greek legal professionals have been upset with the movie over a possible insinuation that Alexander the Nice was bisexual. Finally, a lawsuit was dropped. “Happily it was not what we had feared. The folks can go and see the film,” mentioned lawyer Giannis Varnakas to the BBC on the time. “There’s a kiss that may be interpreted in some ways, however we now have prevented the worst.”

Regardless of all the cash and all the promising items on the board, Stone could not fairly ship on the potential — at the least not at first, however we’ll get to that. “Alexander” clocked in at practically three hours, and sadly, critics have been largely not on its facet. One of many solely plus sides, at the least on paper, is that the movie was opening over the lengthy Thanksgiving vacation body. Ultimately, that solely helped a lot.

“Alexander” hit theaters on Wednesday, November 24, 2004. Hollywood studios will usually launch movies the day earlier than Thanksgiving to profit from the total five-day window. It labored fairly nicely for “The Starvation Video games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” and “Napoleon” in 2023. Not a lot for Warner Bros. and Stone right here, because the epic biopic tanked with a $13.6 million opening weekend, touchdown at quantity six on the charts. Disney’s “Nationwide Treasure” held onto the highest spot in its second weekend, whereas “Christmas with the Kranks” landed at quantity three in its debut.

Over the five-day vacation stretch, the movie’s complete solely grew to $21.8 million. With a wave of detrimental evaluations to struggle in opposition to, it was useless within the water within the U.S. It fell off a cliff in weekend two and was totally out of the highest by mid-December. It shed screens like loopy as films like “Ocean’s Twelve” and “Blade: Trinity” entered theaters. There have been no Oscar nominations to fall again on, both. It just about was all unhealthy information. 

“Alexander” completed its run with a measly $34.2 million domestically to go along with a much more wholesome $133 million abroad for a grand complete of $167.2 million worldwide. When accounting for advertising and marketing prices and the lower theaters take, it was a monetary trainwreck.

Whereas no exact determine was cited (this stuff are sometimes stored as secret as potential), the movie misplaced tens of million of {dollars} in its theatrical run. “I by no means understood how an organization like Warner Bros. might settle for this type of high quality,” producer Thomas Schühly mentioned in reflection of the movie in a latest piece for The Hollywood Reporter.

“I assumed, ‘What can I do?’ I felt a lot disgrace,” Farrell mentioned reflecting on the failure of “Alexander” in 2023. “I discovered myself in a spot the place with everybody I met I needed to say, ‘Have you ever seen ‘Alexander?’ If in case you have, I am actually sorry.’ I am not even joking.”

Stone, for his half, had his personal theories. Because the filmmaker behind “JFK” and “Platoon” identified in a 2005 interview with The Guardian, the movie carried out much better abroad than it did within the U.S. His concept? American fundamentalism and the media basically sabotaged the entire thing.

“There is a raging fundamentalism in morality in the USA. From day one audiences did not present up. They did not even learn the evaluations within the [American] south as a result of the media was utilizing the phrases: ‘Alex is Homosexual’.”

Over time, Stone retooled the movie a number of totally different instances with 4 (sure, 4) totally different variations ultimately making it to dwelling video. There was the “Director’s Minimize” in 2005, the “Closing Minimize” in 2007, and the “Final Minimize” in 2014. “It took me three years to get out a digital model that I lastly was happy with, which not many know of as a result of there was no promoting,” Stone mentioned in a 2012 Fb submit. “However at the least it was put out by Warner Bros of their catalogue version; it is known as “Alexander Revisited” (2007). It is truly one of many largest promoting objects within the catalogue, close to 1 million copies have been moved.”

In some methods, the movie ultimately discovered its viewers. The early 2000s nonetheless supplied a sturdy dwelling video market led by DVD, that means that even an enormous bomb equivalent to this might recoup a few of its losses. The percentages of “Alexander” ever turning a revenue are slim to none, although. On the very least, the financiers have been within the gap for a protracted, very long time. It wasn’t what anybody had in thoughts, that is for certain. This was no “Gladiator.”

Whereas “Horizon” director Kevin Costner is comfortable to level out that DVD isn’t useless, it is not what it as soon as was. That security internet now not exists in the identical approach for the business. VOD definitely helps, however streaming income hasn’t but made up for this once-mighty pillar of the business, one which “Alexander” benefited drastically from. That is definitely price reflecting upon 20 years eliminated.

Other than that, it is a prime instance of Hollywood letting a finances get far too excessive for no good motive. Is it low-cost to make a historic epic? After all not. However as we have seen in recent times, blockbuster film budgets have spiraled uncontrolled. Stone’s ardour venture reveals that it isn’t a brand new difficulty by any means, it is simply gotten a lot worse. Nonetheless, the lesson stays the identical: Studios must do a significantly better job of not permitting such issues to occur within the first place. Funds responsibly, and such catastrophes can at the least be mitigated, even when they cannot be completely prevented.

Past that, it is a prime instance of chasing success gone awry. “Gladiator” was a singular success story due to the brilliance of Ridley Scott and the whole lot lining up excellent. Replicating that success was, at finest, not going to be straightforward and, extra doubtless, could be nearly unattainable. Warner Bros. and Stone realized that the exhausting approach. Hollywood would do nicely to be way more cautious in making an attempt to emulate success tales. It is at all times way more difficult than “folks need to see an enormous historic epic.” Reductive pondering is a quick observe to catastrophe.