Alexander Trailer

[Vonbloodbath]

Click here to experience Greatness...

This trailer hasn't overwhelmed me, but it has intrigued me. And I think that's a good thing, IMHO; there's been a lot of films recently which, while good, have not been as exciting as the trailers suggested.

This looks, to me, like the film I've been waiting for ever since Maximus failed to escape from Rome. Troy for Wargamers.

'-)

VB

 

[colonyearth]

I'm really looking forward to this film. It's one of two being made about Alexander. This one will at least acknowledge that Alexander had a male lover and friend (played by Jared Leto -- and if you think that the image of Farrell and Leto together hasn't excited me in many ways -- think again ).

I don't know if the other film will go more into this or not...though I do know that one of the two is supposed to tell it "the way it really was" in that regard. Too often major gay figures from history have their love for men whitewashed or cut out completely. It's about time we started telling the truth about these people who changed the world...heros in more than one way to me.

Another was King Richard the Lion Heart. Shakespeare also liked boys. When will we stop re-writing history in order to make it more "palletable" for the conservatives?

I hope Stone (who is not afraid of truth or controversy) tells it like it was without flinching. Reportedly he is.

The fact also that someone like Collin Farrell, a very macho and tough straight man, is playing someone who had a male lover should be a sign to straight men out there. If you're comfortable in who you are, then gay men should never be or feel like a threat, so you can relax.

CE

 

[Vonbloodbath]

This one will at least acknowledge that Alexander had a male lover and friend (played by Jared Leto -- and if you think that the image of Farrell and Leto together hasn't excited me in many ways -- think again ).

I don't know if the other film will go more into this or not...though I do know that one of the two is supposed to tell it "the way it really was" in that regard.

Well the other project is from Baz "moulin Rouge" Luhrman, and I believe they have mentioned they wont be shying away from the issue either.

 

[colonyearth]

That's right, thanks for reminding me...though it will be interesting to see how Luhrman approaches it...he sees things very differently than most. And he's one I can't see shying away from such subject matter either.

 

[Nukemall]

Too often major gay figures from history have their love for men whitewashed or cut out completely. It's about time we started telling the truth about these people who changed the world...heros in more than one way to me.

In Ancient Greece it was a cultural thing and mostly intergenerational (Yes, this does mean that the Greeks invented pederastry). So really it was the rule rather than the exception.

For more information:

http://www.truthtree.com/pederasty.shtml

 

[Glacophane]

This is a little off-topic I suppose but I'll throw it in. There is a group in Africa that sends their young boys to live with men. This particular society is secluded from women and homosexual practices do occur and are considered normal. Every boy must go through this before they become a man.

And as with the movie, I kind of want to see it as well.

 

[colonyearth]

Too often major gay figures from history have their love for men whitewashed or cut out completely. It's about time we started telling the truth about these people who changed the world...heros in more than one way to me.

In Ancient Greece it was a cultural thing and mostly intergenerational (Yes, this does mean that the Greeks invented pederastry). So really it was the rule rather than the exception.

For more information:

http://www.truthtree.com/pederasty.shtml

I'm not sure what you're saying with all of this and really don't want to get into any kind of gay argument about things, but actually pederasty has been around as long as humankind has been...as have all forms of sexual behavior.

This does not mean that people were not 100% gay in those times. While yes, sex with men was more exceptable and practiced without prejudice, there were gay people...naturally born that way as they are today as well. As to whether or not Alexander was 100% gay and had women in order to carry on his bloodline (which was usually done in that frame of mind), or simply practiced the sexual behavior of the time, no one will ever fully know since we weren't there.

He did have a best friend who was also his lover. As for King Richard...he was simply queer.

My point was that there are great figures in history who were gay and that that part of them has been removed from history or passed over. These historical figures could be role models and inspirations to gay youth today if only the true history were taught and shown.

This seems to be changing slowly...and I am blessed to be a part of the generation in which this move has begun.

But we cannot stop there, more must and will be done.

Ok, off the soap-box now. Just didn't like the implication of comparison of gay men and pederasts (which are always lumped into the catch-all category of pedophiles -- even though they are really not by definition the same thing.)

Still can't wait to see this movie!

 

[GKarsEye]

Of all the things to worry about a film that claims to accurately portray the life of one of the greatest and mysterious conquerors of all time, his homo (and, at the time culturally acceptable, as others have pointed out) jollies is the biggest concern? Please.

It would be just as absurd to make it a big deal in the movie as it would be to try to deny it. It would also be reasonable to avoid it, as it would be one of many small things about his life that don't really tell us about who he was and why he did what he did.

If it were a film about Hadrian, then yeah, the boy lover thing would be important.

If I were making the film, I'd probably thrown it in their with a brief knowing glance or something, to let the audience know that this was one of many things he was into.

I'm more interested in how he became so obsessed with conquest, especially after having been taught by arguably the most important thinkers of Western civilization, who himself did not advocate this sort of thing.

 

[PsionTen]

I'm a history buff and I've always found Alexander fascinating. With that said, however, I've always wanted to see a film done on Hannibal... as far as pure spectacle goes, you can't beat crossing the Alps with a herd of elephants. The Battle of Cannae would be spectacular on film.

 

[GKarsEye]

I think I heard that they were actually going to a Hannibal film.

I also love history and great historical epics and historical fiction, but I've lately been bummed by what Hollywood is giving us. Braveheart is completely full of shite (though it is a great movie), Troy is balogny for any standpoint from what I've heard, I haven't see Alamo but it has flunked in the BO, Last Samurai was almost culturally insulting... Master & Commander is the only one that floated my boat, so to speak.

 

[Sindatur]

Alexander had a male lover and friend (played by Jared Leto -- and if you think that the image of Farrell and Leto together hasn't excited me in many ways -- think again ).

Eh, all the photos I've seen of Colin Farrel over the past year, he looks like crap, and that blonde hair just looks ridiculous on him. Plenty of good looking Blond actors out there (or even ones that look good with died blond hair)

 

[colonyearth]

Of all the things to worry about a film that claims to accurately portray the life of one of the greatest and mysterious conquerors of all time, his homo (and, at the time culturally acceptable, as others have pointed out) jollies is the biggest concern? Please.

It would be just as absurd to make it a big deal in the movie as it would be to try to deny it. It would also be reasonable to avoid it, as it would be one of many small things about his life that don't really tell us about who he was and why he did what he did.

If it were a film about Hadrian, then yeah, the boy lover thing would be important.

If I were making the film, I'd probably thrown it in their with a brief knowing glance or something, to let the audience know that this was one of many things he was into.

I'm more interested in how he became so obsessed with conquest, especially after having been taught by arguably the most important thinkers of Western civilization, who himself did not advocate this sort of thing.

I'm not going to get into this, you obviously did not understand what I was saying and being that you're straight, I really don't expect you to understand the desire within a gay person for historical and more grand (and accepted and even revered) gay role models...especially for the younger generation, and for them to see history accurately not tainted by some puritanical view. That said, I did say I wanted to see this film, and never said it was the biggest concern, simply a major step forward in our ability to show people like Alexander accurately without glossing over certain parts that might offend straights.

Forgive me, if for once I want to see the person portrayed accurately. I know it's not a big thing to you...but it is to me and the gay comminity. It is a sign that our society is finally starting to look at and show history's great people as they were, not concerned with what is "proper" in their narrowly viewing eyes.

Enough said on that.

Sorry Nukemall for reacting as I did...I did read that link. Very interesting essay and a wonderful site. Thank you for the link.

CE

 

[hypatia]

Yea, I noticed how old Mighty did the "yea, he was gay... but we don't have to mention it or anything" bit.

And yea, that's probably how a lot of straight men feel about it: they'd rather not think about it, quite frankly.

But it was an aspect of his life, and by some accounts an important one. I'm surprised you can't recognize that, old Mighty, seeing some of your posts in NC17.

I might see it for that reason alone. I usually avoid and detest war movies. I avoided seeing the second movie in LOTR for that reason alone: I knew it would be war-heavy. (For the record, I'm glad I got the DVD )

I hope the film is a good one. Post something when it's out in the theaters, I am pretty sloppy about keeping track of when movies come out.

 

[PsionTen]

I'm not going to get into this, you obviously did not understand what I was saying and being that you're straight, I really don't expect you to understand the desire within a gay person for historical and more grand (and accepted and even revered) gay role models...especially for the younger generation

I'm straight, but I think I know where you're coming from. It wasn't until I reached junior high that I discovered that Africa offered more to world history than a bunch of savages running around with spears and that was only because I had the curiosity to learn more than what they were dishing out in public school. When we did touch on African history (which was rare) it basically centered on Ancient Egypt (which wasn't "really" a part of Africa) and Ancient Egyptians (who -- through some kinda miracle -- all had fair skin and light colored hair). And it gets even worse when you move to biblical history where every character in the bible (except Simone of Cyrene) is white with long flowing straight hair. As far as I know, the only people to challenge this nonsense sucessfully was the people behind The Prince of Egypt ... of course it was only a cartoon, so no problem. I definitely know what you're talking about.

 

[colonyearth]

*bows humbly*

Thank you. to both hypatia and PsionTen.

 

[ibwolf]

This one will at least acknowledge that Alexander had a male lover and friend (played by Jared Leto -- and if you think that the image of Farrell and Leto together hasn't excited me in many ways -- think again ).

I don't know if the other film will go more into this or not...though I do know that one of the two is supposed to tell it "the way it really was" in that regard.

Well the other project is from Baz "moulin Rouge" Luhrman, and I believe they have mentioned they wont be shying away from the issue either.

Luhrman's Alexander movie is 'on hold' and may be scrapped entierly. According to the IMDB "Project continues to be developed, but it's unsure whether this will be Luhrmann's next picture." Given that they haven't even gotten into pre prodcution I'd say that there is little chance of seeing this until 2006 at the earliest. And if Stone's movie either tanks or becomes a mega hit Luhrman's movie will almost certainly be abandoned.

 

[GKarsEye]

Yea, I noticed how old Mighty did the "yea, he was gay... but we don't have to mention it or anything" bit.

Oh for Pete's sake, I didn't say that. If they would make Alexander gay it would be historically inaccurate, which is my point. He had homo relations- as did most Greek aristocracy at the time. If they put it in that context, then it would be historically accurate.

Please don't lecture me about the gay crap. I was at friends' production (yes, some of which were gay) in college about Alan Turing (for those that don't know, he was a British mathematician who decoded German WWII transmissions and developed the key theories that led to computer science and artificial intelligence. His homosexuality gave the post-war British government an excuse to can him using "government secrets" as the reason, effectively destroying his career and leading to his suicide). The play focused on his homosexuality because it was key to understanding the man, his inner turmoil, and how he died. I was front row, right behind the dude covered with only a little towel making out with the main character.

You should wish for every straight person to be as "misunderstanding" as I am.

And I still don't understand how Alexander is the "great man" you want as a gay icon. He was a monster. If I were gay, I'd be all, "he's one of yours, straightees." Y'all have Michaelangelo, Turing, Oscar Wilde- plenty of great gay icons.

 

[Bab5nutz]

I've lost count of the number of films/mini-series that I've seen where I've ended up thinking "they got that wrong!" or "did that really happen?" The upside of that was that I often ended up reading up on that subject to try and find the truth of it - if there is truth to be found.
I must admit that Troy had me howling with laughter in some places. A couple of times in some places, I wanted to yell "well, there goes a third of all Greek tragedy!" I kept waiting for it to go "Hercules" or "Xena" style. It never did.
As for Braveheart, boy did they get things wrong!
The Princess that Wallace has a fling with was 13 and still living in France at the time Wallace died. Edward Longshanks lived for several years after Wallace's execution.
What they did get right was that Edward I was a first-class SOB. During his reign, he conquered Wales, expelled all the Jews from England - and introduced the charming practice of hanging, drawing and quartering to England.
Another thing they got right was that his son Edward II was probably one of those who practised 'the love that dare not speak its name', although he was not quite the fop portrayed in the film. Eventually his predilections led his wife Isabella to take a lover, and then dethrone Edward. The unfortunate has-been king was thrown in the slammer, where he was allegedly murdered in a rather gruesome fashion.
Funny that Master and Commander a film based on a novel, was probably the most historically accurate of the bunch. I Got the feeling [and what I've read backs it up] that conditons were pretty much the way they were protrayed in the film. And I got the feeling that the filmmakers had gone to considerable trouble to get their history right.
From what I understand, in Alexander's time, being homosexual was something was quite acceptable - more acceptable than it is even today. And no-one event thought twice about it. I should add that I have just seen the Alexander trailer, and there was certainly no hint in that they were bringing the gay element out. Infact, one of the lines referred to Alexander as 'a lover', and then showed him kissing a woman. Okay, I know that a lot can change between the trailer now, and what we will see in November. And that especially given the current climate, the film producers might be a bit scared to bring the 'love that dare not speak its name' side of Alexander out incase they scare off the audience.
I hope that that aspect does come out, though. I wold like to see a big budget movie get it right.

 

[colonyearth]

It is as Bab5nutz mentioned, the shying away of historical facts like this, that was my initial issue. Whether he was a monster or not, Alexander is a formidable historical figure and I would like for his time and history and story to be portrayed accurately...which means that Leto's character in the film was in fact a lover and best friend. Women were in a different class back then. He might have been "a lover" but let us show all of those whom he loved, not just the women.

My point old mighty, is that we should be showing the accuracy of history not only the parts that will make it fit into current conservative, mainstream concepts. It was not a big deal to have male lovers (although this did not really make one fully gay as there were people even back then who didn't like women and women who didn't like men)...so let us show that aspect of that time correctly; and not pretend that that part of that society just didn't exist. To finally have gay history depicted correctly is, indeed, a great step forward for all who are gay in this world. And it is an understanding of why such things are important to the gay community that I felt you didn't get. I did not mean to insinuate that you are homophobic or uncaring...simply that you are straight, and in being such cannot fully understand how it feels to be gay and considered a sub-human culture and person in today's society.

The fact that such historical epics are seeming to finally tell it the way it really was, gives me hope that maybe we can quit re-writing history in order to hide the bits that conservatives don't like...maybe things are changing...one can hope.

Historical figures, whether monsters or poets, are part of each culture's past and sense of itself. For years and years the history of gay culture has been hidden and swept under the rug...so how can we learn of the great achievements, the great sorrows, and the evil deeds that go into who we are as gays and who we were then and where we are going? Any culture must have a sense and understand of where it's been to fully understand and know where it is going.

I hope you understand a bit better why this would be important to me and the gay community. While it's no big deal to you or important to the story to you, it is...really...since it is, finally, a more truthful look...and that alone makes it important.

CE

 

[GKarsEye]

The fact that such historical epics are seeming to finally tell it the way it really was

They are? I've heard Alamo is not bad, but what movies recently- or, for that matter, ever- jive with history?

Also, does the new Alexander movie claim to be historically accurate? Also, is it a biopic or an epic where he's the central character (which are two different things). Depending on what the film is attempting and claiming, they might not be "wrong" in showing very little or even nothing about his love life at all.