|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Literature Reviews
Alexander | from Wolf - Saturday, November 27, 2004
accessed 1490 times I know this isn’t a movie forum, but since we’re stuck with pointless pointlessness these days anyway, did anyone else see the new film “Alexander”? Does anyone besides me think that it would’ve been impossible for such a sweet little wimp to take over the world? (I’m not referring to his gay tendencies.) Anyway, if you haven’t seen this movie yet, I suggest that you don’t.
But if you really must, take a pillow along. The first hour or so is OK, but the rest is serious monotony. Everyone looked thrilled to get out of the cinema when it was over.
BTW, does anyone know if there’s any historical record of Alexander the Great being gay? Not that it would surprise me, most despots have had tendencies. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Phoenixkidd
Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is definetely hard to direct a historical film with so much detail when so much of the audience knows the story. It seems like Oliver Stone had to throw in the gay angle in it to make it more appealing or at the least intriguing and at the least a point for criticism. Historically Greeks meddled in gay relationships during their years in a military academy or during war. However, they were expected to marry and have children when not at war. How much of this aspect Alexander was involved is purely circumstancial. Check this out http://www.glbtq.com/literature/greek_lit_ancient.html
The fight scenes were very difficult to follow, especially when Alexander went to kill the Persian King in one campaign. The slower frames per second and the red screen made it seem so much more confusing. But it did make a point of how confusing and bloody war back then was. The accents were a bit ridiculous being all Irish, Geezus they have such a pedestal in HOllywood, arggh damn Collin and all his cohorts!
(reply to this comment)
| from C.D.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 09:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
To me the movie was a big dissapointment. They really showed little about what made Alexander great. The accents in the film were also very annoying. You think that Oliver Stone would have choosen one accent and have them all stick to it. Collin Farrell had an Irish accent, Jared Leto an American accent, there were random Scottish accents, Angelina Jolie had some weird Russian accent, and Rosario Dawson sounded like Salma Hayek. Through the whole movie it was very obvious and distracting. The dialouge was also over the top and a little to dramatic.
(reply to this comment)
| from steam
Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 04:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well I just watched the film last night, and it was not a well produced bit of cinema, in that it came across as a very expensive documentary rather than an engaging film. However I am surprised no one added this to the comments so I'll take the plunge: "Alexander thought his hands were"........ etc.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from Baxter
Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 02:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is the Colin Farrel/Oliver Stone one, right?
Alexander is pretty much confirmed as being bisexual, that much is bettable.
(reply to this comment)
| from Cultinvator
Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 01:32
 (Agree/Disagree?)
The greeks were big on balance, something which I think was emphasized. We're so used to having a powerful 'focus' on our stories with a major action hero who does everything and is merely strong instead of balanced. I think we could learn something from the greeks in that aspect. We're way out of balance as a western society and could learn a thing or two from homer's stories, where there was no such thing as a good god or a bad god, just diferent forces striving in different directions, reflecting their expertise, and strength. Maybe I'm a bit biased having been born in Athens, and looking at Alexander as an ideal kouros.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Wolf
Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 09:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
I studied the Illiad and the Odyssey. Yes, Homer’s heroes are neither “good” nor “bad” per se, but they are described as “god like”, something which Colin Farrell as Alexander is definitely not. I’m not talking about his sexuality either, my question about that was more of a footnote. Colin Farrell constantly has a dreamy, lost look in this movie, and he drones on about ideals that were not even understood at the time – his whole speech about fighting for freedom, for example, would have gone right over people’s heads in those days. The movie shows very little of the things that we know made Alexander great: his tremendous strength and fearlessness, his military genius, and his interest in science, philosophy and technological development.
That said, I agree that many of us could learn from Greek philosophy (esp. the hicks that swallow Bush’s “we good them bad” crap). IMO the producers of Troy did adhere to this line of thought, which is why I liked Troy despite bad reviews.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Thursday, December 02, 2004, 01:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can see you're not talking out of your ass, but you're quite the purist in greek history. In context of today's realities in film and the arts, I'd have to say that although I appreciate the pure truth of what whent on, some contemporary translation and modern reinterpretation isn't all that stupid either. It's like trying to read the bible in King James english only. The bible wasn't written in the time of shakespeare or in english, so unless you and I know greek, some artistic deviance and liberty isn't really all that unfitting, considering how the general ideal in greek society was ballance, you could view this as a balance between the purist greek past, and today's audience capabilities of grasping a reality that is really pretty far out of our semantics. I think you have a point though. I'm just not as much of a purist as some are. Nothing wrong with being a purist and sticking to old school.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from Cultinvator
Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 01:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hate the people on CNN who critique movies, they are a bunch of suburbian silly wannabes with superficial values that appease the vast majority of American dummasses crusading so called 'coservative values'. They should pick up a history book for a change.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Cultinvator
Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 01:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I saw the film Alexander, and I'm also taking ancient greek history of art. He was bisexual, and so was Julius Caesar. Big deal? Gay people come in all types. Some critics say that the film lacked focus. But I think it's focus was there, subtle but still you could see his need to push the limits of conquered reality both physical and in the world of ideas and experiences. It helps if you've read the Illiad or the Odyssey to appreciate greek mythology. Christianity some say, and I agree, has borrowed most of it's characters from greek stories, more so even than Judaism.
People really need to get over the whole gay ordeal. Gay people are just like everyone else, there are achievers, macho looking, whimpy looking, brainy, and every other type and alexander was married and had sex with women so he probably didn't feel he had to stick to one sex, he literally ruled the world of his day.
Everyone else were small bands of monkey tribes in the day. Although some might say greek civilization did do some borrowing too from Egyptian and Persian ideals, in architecture and philosophy, as well as religion. Nothing comes from nothing.
(reply to this comment)
| from sarafina
Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have to agree. We just saw this movie and we're severely disappointed. There were only three highlights, the war with the Persians,the war with India and the wrestling match with his naked full breasted wife. Other then that there was a lot of unnecessary dialog and drawn out scenes with a gender confused man. He certainly did not come across as GREAT esp. with his soldiers constantly questioning him and bad mouthing him. I never really get what position Oliver Stone takes on Alexander not to mention some really important battles were left out. It just skipped around so much.
Mostly I'm very disappointed about not getting to see much of the dreamy Angelina as she was the main motivation in getting me to see it while in theaters. Lastly all of us were just dying for the credits to come up as you said and we were extremely happy it finally had an ending. (however poorly it was)
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Shackled
Monday, November 29, 2004, 18:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Eagle eye view and dust clouds only took away from the excitement and entertainment of battle scenes. Although that battle, gilgameah or something against Darius, was a major historic battle; I was disappointed to not see his first conquests. It skipped around so much that what I was hopin to see wasn't there and yet it prolonged other parts that weren't needed. For an Oliver Stone film, definitely disappointing. And he certainly didn't seem great to me and I'm not sayin that cause he was bi. Like Fina already mentioned, his men constantly questioned him, his generals seemed loyal only cause of his father and they weren't too pleased with his sexual tastes. This film lacked alot. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Jerseygirl
Monday, November 29, 2004 - 10:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
The movie certainly did make you wonder. Even though I am a fan of C.F. I have to say, the commanding presence thing ( i.e. Russell Crowe in Gladiator) was severely lacking. Even the part when he tames and rides the horse as a child was more convincing. Oh well. I wonder if this is why I was scared out of seeing Troy. Some stories are better in books.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from afflick
Monday, November 29, 2004 - 06:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, it is historically factual (that part.)
(reply to this comment)
| From Sharon
Wednesday, December 01, 2004, 08:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
If I'm not mistaken, the Greeks didn't really consider anyone "gay". Men with men, or men with boys for that matter, were matter-of-fact, natural and even preferred to hetero relationships. Women's minds were considered inferior, therefore it was only natural to have a relationship with someone whose mind was as "advanced" as their own. Women were for procreation. If you read the Symposium by Plato (I think) it is quite clear. In the book they are making a joke out of men that like women sexually, because they only produce physical children instead of birthing great ideas like they would if they were with a man. Anyway, my point being that it would stand to reason that he would be in a relationship with a man since that was the rule rather than the exception.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Thursday, December 02, 2004, 01:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, there were some aspects of greek life that by today's standards would appear as chovenistic. I think some of that was towards the end of the classic period. Before the Archaic period temples of hera, the mother goddess of earth, marriage and vegetation, were the standard temple way before Zeus came into the picture. There was a graduate transition fromt the more matriarch type society of earth-physical- woman worship to a more air-male-spiritual. Maybe this happens in cycles?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Wednesday, December 01, 2004, 21:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
You’re right! Except the norm was men with boys, NOT men with men. In fact, “aetas” (same age) male relationships were frowned on. The older man (erastes) was meant to guide the younger man (eromenos) and lead him into adulthood, held close by the power of erotic love.
In case you’re wondering, I did know the answer to my question in this post before posting it. I just wanted to get a discussion going. Alexander was not “gay” in our sense of the word, he merely enjoyed what the Greeks considered a normal sexual life, with both younger men and women. Despite Alexander’s deep love for Hephaistion there’s no proof that they had sexual relations. Some say that Alexander minimized sex and sleep and considered them weaknesses.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]