Posted on 12/02/2004 8:06:42 AM PST by worldclass
A large part of "Alexander's" downfall is attributable to the moral distastefulness of the subject matter. Alexander the Great is played as a mop-top, indecisive bisexual by Farrell. During the course of the movie, Farrell kisses a eunuch full on the mouth and exchanges numerous lingering glances with boyhood chum and grown-up gay lover Hephaistion (played by an eye-liner-wearing Jared Leto). Anthony Hopkins, playing Ptolemy, intones: "It was said ... that Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion's thighs."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
It seems to me that the homosexuals in Hollywood used to make movies that were fun, interesting and even inspiring. Maybe there is something to what Ms. Taylor said. Maybe so much of Hollywood has succumbed to AIDS that there aren't enough of the folks left to make fun, interesting AND inspiring movies. Maybe that's why so many movies these days are simply remakes of those from previous generations, except that we now need to prove that EVERY person significant in history was homosexual.
By the way, is the latest Alfie about a homosexual? If not, why not?
That's why Sharon Stone whined that social conservatism prevented the filmmakers from approving a lesbian kiss between her and Halle Berry in "Catwoman": "Halle's so beautiful, and I wanted to kiss her. I said, 'How can you have us in the movie and not have us kiss? It's such a waste.' But that's what you get for having George Bush as president."
Great Caesar's Homosexual Ghost! That woman is stupid!
Not trying to defend Oliver Stone or Hollywood in general, but it was the Ancient Greeks who portrayed Alexander as bisexual (bisexuality apparently was common in those days). His successes have nothing to do with his sexuality.
Having seen the film (for free at an advance screening. I won't give Oliver Stone any of my money) I would have to say that the real reason the film is a failure is that it terrible. It is lousy in every way, bad story, bad script, incredibly bad acting (Angelina Jolie), lousy CGI, bad directing, bad editing, unfollowable battle scenes, too long, too boring, and about people you definitely don't want to spend three hours of your life with. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
But Alexander was not Greek. He was Macedonian. The Macedonians fought with the Greeks, but they didn't camp together.
The only thing Hollywood has given us is large recognition of Gay-lesbian community, other perversions of society (which should have never become main stream) way out in the open. Hollywood itself is perverse.
These people are WAY overpaid for what they do, and worshipped as icons for which they do not deserve, because they have not earned it.
My husband and I were originally looking forward to both Troy and Alexander but the feedback turned us off. Not enough battle scenes and funny artsy camera work. I can't imagine my husband being favorably impressed by that "thigh" remark.
We saw National Treasure last week - a little loony but lots of fun!
Nothing in Hollywood but liberal freaks. God should destroy this city.
Unfortunately there isn't a Macedonian version which shows a different picture of his sexuality. You don't have to camp with your enemy to learn about them. This is portrayed by the Greeks as common knowledge.
But not his contemporaries. The ones who portrayed him as bisexual were writing about him some 200 years later.
Having seen the film opening night, I fully agree with you EXCEPT, while Angela was definitely acting over the top, at least she had a personality and might herself have conquered the world. The worst performance in the film full of bad performances was Colin Farrell who never showed an ounce of charisma, certainty, charm, confidence, let alone exultation in battle or conquest. If he was a confident queer, I could have liked the movie. But not a petulant, weeping indecisive dweeb who never seemed to enjoy anything.
Alexander the FABULOUS!
It is well-known that Alexander, like many in that culture, was bi-sexual. That said, I'll bet he also went to the bathroom as much as any man, both at home at between battles. Does that mean a movie should show him squatting in a field, searching for leaves in order to be "historically accurate"? Don't think so. Would that help ticket sales? Don't think so. Is Alexander's sex life an integral part of his story? Don't think so.
No it is not accepted among the real reputable. There is ZERO evidence during his lifetime that he was engagine in such conduct.
In fact one of the later historians cites a comunication where Alexander rages agains a Persian who implies homosexual conduct.
You don't understand the purpose of Stone's effort, the sex IS an integral part of his "gay" movie. This is a revisionist history effort to normalize homosexuality. Revisionist history which has been integral to the homo-advocate groups since the 1960's.
The ancient Greeks also write that homosexual behavior is a choice. Homo-advocates skip that part.
Let's see...the main characters protect the actual Constitution with their lives, there's pretty much no sex or offensive language, the bad guys get in the end and the good guys are rewarded.
Yeah, it is too Pro-America.
Very well said, and your point is well taken.
Given the nerve this topic seems to have touched, I wonder how mainstream would react to a movie with a true depiction of the Spartans and their conquests, given that their sexuality and mentoring program played a central role in their fighting effectiveness.
Julius Caesar was a notoriously successful womanizer, and yet apparently was a pretty boy who may have been willingly submissive and receptive, should we say, in his purported homosexual life. Thus the famous comment about him: "Every woman's man, and every man's woman."
This was really about power, and not about sex -- the point to the comment was that Julius Caesar was effeminate and weak, and that his "lady's man" image was a farce. It wasn't that he was having sex with men, it was that in those homo relationships, he was being dominated. It was this that was considered to be a disgrace, and that's why his opponents tried to use it against him. I have no idea of whether it was true or not.
I think it very problematic to use classical histories and assume that comments about sexuality can be taken at face value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.