Artsculture

Alexander the Gay

He conquered the known world because Mommie was a meanie. Who knew?

By Dorothy Woodend, 26 Nov 2004, TheTyee.ca

alexander3sm

Oh, Oliver. What a mess.

The tag line of Oliver Stone's new film Alexander is "Fortune favours the bold" but here the bold have spent a fortune and won't win any favours for it. Alexander the Great, isn't so much great, in this movie, as confused. "Is he straight or is he gay?" is a line from an old Prince song, but the question is also fueling most of the press coverage of the film. Stone is being sued by the Greeks for suggesting that Alexander played for the other team, while Warner Brothers is playing up the Alexander the Gay angle, simply because other than that, there isn't too much excitement here.

The story, like many biopics, is shown in flashback. Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy senior narrates the story to a bunch of silent scribes who write down his every utterance. The tale begins with Alexander's death and then backtracks to his childhood. We see him first in the bed of his mother Olympias, who gives the kid a bit of a ego boost by telling him he's the son of Zeus, not the one eyed trouser snake King Philip (Val Kilmer), who shows up right on cue and tries to force himself on her. Alexander then hops on pop, and there's a lot of screaming and wrassling about. "I carried my avenger in my womb!" howls Jolie and then she literally howls. I kid you not.

Thighs matter

There are some noted scenery chewers here. Stone sets the tone, but Kilmer and Jolie tie for first place in set eating. Jolie, especially, wraps those big lips around one of the strangest accents I've heard in a long time. She's all snakey hair and bedroom eyes, and mommy dearest. Colin Farrell, as Alexander, simply looks terrified that she'll swallow him whole, like one of the pythons she cradles to her bosom. The rest of Alexander's childhood revolves around lots of wrestling with his chum Hephaistion, which gives rise to the line "It was said that Alexander was never defeated except by Hephaistion's thighs." (Insert dirty giggles here.)

As boys, Alexander and friends Nearchus, Cassander, Ptolemy, and Perdiccas learn from Aristotle that a little mano a mano, in bed and out, is a good thing, as it will save society from itself. Alexander takes this to heart, and takes Hephaistion along for the ride when he takes over the world. But like any good fighter in training, Alexander doesn't want to blow his wad before the big battle and sends his lover off without even a kiss. First he takes over Babylon, marches over some mountains, kills a bunch of monkeys and hacks up an elephant before dying in his bed. Which actually sounds more exciting than it looks.

Horsing around

Despite the hell raising hair do's and battlefield carnage, this movie is a talkie. There are long lengthy passages where people simply declaim at one another from across a crowded room but the politics of ancient Macedonia don't really make for riveting viewing. I didn't feel particularly emotionally involved in the story. In fact half the time, I didn't even know what was going on. There's buckets of blood and plenty of death but the only creature I really felt sorry for was Bucephalus, who is ridden bareback (get it) all the way to India, gets stuck in the neck with a stick and dies. Colin Farrell may have other horsey attributes but being kind to the equine is not one of them. You may leave the theatre thinking, what exactly was the point? That women are more evil than men; war can be fun; or die young and stay pretty? I was hoping at least for a few shots of Farrell's own reported colossus but no such luck; there isn't even a lot of hot gay action here, except on the battlefield and none in the boudoir. Nuts!

To be fair to Mr. Stone, however, although the film is overly long and narratively incoherent -- it jumps about in time, changes colour, and has some weird CG eagles flapping about -- there are some stellar moments. Historical epics are all about the big battles. Mix together millions of extras, horses, swords, and hey presto! Movie magic. As a film maker, Oliver Stone has always had very male preoccupations, football, war and the homoeroticism inherent in each activity: men bond over blood and balls.

In the one truly exciting sequence, young Alexander gets to test his metal mettle, he races up and down like a football hooligan getting his troops all hardened for battle, and then it's the big penetration into the loins of the enemy. The film comes alive while dealing death and Stone deserves credit for this. This has always been his purview, the male territory of getting it, taking it and moving on. When women do show up in this movie, there is the sense they should be twiddling their moustaches like Snidely Whiplash, boo hiss, since ostensibly they are the villains of the piece. The subtext seems to be that Alexander conquered the known world because his mommy was a meanie.

Stone cold

The other message that an overwhelming mama means a gay son is implicit. But where is the explicit? Despite the film's pretense that it pushes the bisexual nature of its protagonist, there is nothing more than a bunch of man-hugs and moony eyed looks. Although historical epics (Troy, Alexander, King Arthur, Gladiator) seem to be making a comeback, no modern film maker has managed to deal adequately with the notion that heroes like Alexander preferred the company of men. In Troy, Brad Pitt's golden twinky was given a wife and his lover Patroclus left out of the story. The gleeful campiness of something like Spartacus, in which Tony Curtis was so toothsome, you wanted to bite him, (Laurence Olivier did), or at least splash about in the tub with him, is noticeably absent.

Supposedly it took Stone almost 15 years to raise the money to make this movie and there is a lot at stake. Liz Hoggard in The Observer writes "Stone's 30-year career is riding on the success of the $150m Alexander and he's not the only one bewitched by the bisexual, blond emperor. Baz Luhrmann and Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis have their own Alexander movie in the works with DiCaprio in the title role." Whether pretty boy Leo can venture where other men have dared to tread, we shall see. Pretty comes with its own set of problems. Troy too suffered from overindulgence of beefcake. Brad Pitt may be fetching, but his Achilles was about as believable as Steve Reeves. The same can be said of Farrell; buried under a golden wig and sporting bleached eyebrows, he looks like so much eye candy.

Goes both ways

This is the kind of film that critics pull out their big knives for, and the cutting and hacking have already started with bloody awful reviews across North America. But Stone isn't the first to be undone by history or at least by presenting history on film; it's easy to get muddled by the sheer money and size of such a production. Ridley Scott's Gladiator had Russell Crowe to anchor it. Say what you will about Crowe, he may be a gargantuan asshole but he has the weight, both literally and metaphorically, to do history justice, whether it's ancient Rome, the British Navy or John Nash. (There's a bit of a gay theme there.) In a recent New York Post article Village Voice columnist Michael Musto said "This film tries to have it both ways, like Alexander himself. It can be hinted at, it can be talked about, but it can't be shown." In the New York Times, Oliver Stone too expressed his reservations over a possible gay backlash (which isn't an obscure sexual position unfortunately). "I'd be naïve not to be concerned, in America, anyway," he said. "I didn't know there would be a parallel situation going on." Meaning, I think, George Bush and his desert quest.

The strangest thing is how conventional the film is, recalling the swords and sandals epics of the 50s and early 60's. Like those films, Alexander has short skirts, lots of fur, and so much man makeup a drag queen might say "Girlfriend, you're overdoing it a bit." But the camp in this camp isn't much fun, it's top heavy and bottomed out. And in this case gay really doesn't mean fun and frolicsome. Bummer man...

Dorothy Woodend reviews films for The Tyee on Fridays.  [Tyee]

15  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Frank (not verified)

    7 years ago

    Dorothy, with all due respect, had you ever read a history of Alexander before seeing the movie? Sounds like you're reviewing Alexander himself as well.

    The reviewers for this movie can't seem to get over the gay thing. Alexander was what he was and its not like he was the only, ever heard of Thebes Sacred Band or the Spartans who died at Thermopylae? The movie shouldn't be trying to make a point about what produces a gay son or other such nonsense. It wouldn't have mattered who is mother was.

    Historical epics don't have to have a point, if one isn't obvious then maybe there isn't one except to show what happened.

    Its too bad the movie is hard to follow and that the dialogue is not well written. And I think Russel Crowe should be the star of every historical period movie :) But although we know a lot about Alexander's life everything can't be checked for accuracy and I've got my Arrian and Fuller, among others, on the shelf behind me to check what I can if need be. However, the historian advising on the movie is top-notch and I'll take his word for the stuff that you can't look up.

    Those looking for another point of view coming from someone who is not a movie reviewer should do a search for the site "Alexander the Great on the web". He didn't like some of the choices made in the movie either but appreciates what was done without worrying about whether Alexander has blow-dried hair. I think his point that the movie decided to leave out much of the "Great" part of Alexander and concentrated more on his early life and the end of his life was a good one. How many ancient battles does the average person really want to watch? Those are better done in a documentary or a book.

  • Fluffy Sparkles Dog of War (not verified)

    7 years ago

    "Hacked up an elephant", huh? Most of us can only manage a furball.

  • Dorothy Woodend (not verified)

    7 years ago

    That's why he was Alexander the GRRRRRREAT!

  • mathnerd (not verified)

    7 years ago

    I don't often find myself so entirely captivated and entertained by many articles. And while I agree with some of the points raised here by Dorothy, I feel somewhat compelled to throw my two cents into the mix! First, let me make one thing very clear: to compare Alexander to a masterpiece like Gladiator would be a monumental mistake, not because the former couldn't be as grand as the letter (and indeed it is not), but because Alexander is simply the portrayal of the life of the man, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. I am neither a history buff nor a movie critic. Yet I found myself surprisingly entertained by this movie. And I couldn't have cared less about Colin's blonde locks, Angelina's accent, men hugging and kissing one another, and a dozen other things which seem to have so deeply offended and/or infuriated the viewing public at large. One more point to consider: at no point during this movie did I ever get the impression that Alexander's "bisexuality" was the main thrusting force (no pun intended) of the plot. Was Alexander gay or bisexual? Who cares? The movie certainly didn't seem to make an issue of it. That we now have a name for every kind of sexual preference under the sun is completely irrelevent. The ancient Greeks made no such distinction, and Stone does a great job of portraying this fact. Anyway, go see this movie and you, like yours truly, will probably find yourself rather pleasantly surprised.

  • Ron (not verified)

    7 years ago

    I think the headline should be Alexander the Great Hair and Shoes

  • Ron (not verified)

    7 years ago

    Or Alexander The Fabulous!

  • Huda Helammi (not verified)

    7 years ago

    Alexander the Great was bi, not just bi-sexual but almost certainly bi-polar or manic depressive. As such he had energy and daring that characterise most people who change the world...

  • lokijy (not verified)

    7 years ago

    DEAR DORothy: gay is not fun, it is the reverse of fun,so it is possible manic depression or some other complexity drove alexander in reality.Revisionist movies may sell well if the director guages the market,Stone may have missed. Homosexuals during history may have contributed when possible, but in modern terms present day misanthropes are not laud but must jump through a social hazing that can lead to suicidal actions. Not a pretty picture but the movie may be . Hope to see it on cable soon.

  • snort (not verified)

    7 years ago

    This review, combined with everything else I've read about 'Alexander', had pretty much convinced me to give it a pass - UNTIL comparisions to Gladiator/Russel Crowe were made. If Crowe's Glad-hand is the litmus test, I may just see Alexander for a joke. Gladiator was SO bad, no matter how loudly you want to 'Crowe' about it, that I would seriously check the credentials of anyone using it as a basis for dissing another film. Seriously.

  • greeklady (not verified)

    7 years ago

    No matter what is said, I loved this movie because it touched on the greatness of a man that I read about when I was about six and learned about in school. Some modern Greeks protest about his bisexuality. I loved it because it gave me a further glimpse real or not into the life and times and personal struggles of a human being who history named The GREAT. Stone is an incrediblbe film maker no matter what. Silly old me shed a few tears of pride about my culture and my birth place Alexandria. The acting I found surprisingly not bad either, considering the long lines.

  • Charles (not verified)

    7 years ago

    First Point: What drove Alexander? Was it his mama, his daddy, some disorder, some syndrome, etc., etc., ad nauseam. I think that, eventually, our descendants will ask the same questions about our psychology as we do about the Greeks' mythology: "Did they REALLY believe that? What's the point? Why did they chatter about it relentlessly?" Second Point: Ms. Woodend says, "You may leave the theatre thinking, what exactly was the point? That women are more evil than men; war can be fun; or die young and stay pretty?" However, many things in life, and also in art (even popular art) can't be boiled down to one soundbite/one moral. I recommend "The Nutty Professor." I love Eddie Murphy, so I watch it for the comedy. But if you don't, you don't even have to see the movie, I'll tell it to you right now: "Don't change...ever. You're fine, you're okay, in fact, you're perfect and defect-free, with no room for improvement. Period." Third (frivolous) Point: My number two complaint about Alexander: his thighs are too white and skinny to be those of a warrior.

  • Charles (not verified)

    7 years ago

    Just an after-thought: I'll second the opinion that Russell Crowe (sp?) should automatically be the lead actor for every epic. Make that "every other": Mel Gibson, too. And Anthony Hopkins would make a fine Cicero. But there would be a LOT of dialogue in that movie. Hey, wait a m i n u t e....that's kinda like r-e-a-d-i-n-g, ain't it?

  • Truman Green (not verified)

    7 years ago

    Personally, I don't watch movies about mass murderers, especially those who kill their own sons.

  • Anonymous

    7 years ago

    Oliver Stone did a great job on Alexander. The homophobics of America can shut the hell up, don't go whining because Oliver Stone kept to his history.

  • Tim in Hong Kong (not verified)

    7 years ago

    I really couldn't give two hoots about Alexander's sexual preferences. I thought it was pretty much a given that the Ancient Greeks swung both ways and in this day and age, I really don't think this should cause such a furore. What I want to know is why did the Macedonians all speak with Irish accents? Little Alexander had an Irish accent, even Val Kilmer had an Irish accent...what gives??? We know Farrell can do a non-Irish accent so I really don't understand. Jolie's accent would have been perfect for a cold war Bond girl and it appears she coached Rosario Dawson. If you’d have listened to this film instead of watching it you would surely have thought it a production of the EIRE embassy in Ukraine. I know this because having made the mistake of going to the late showing of this movie I must confess to having taken the opportunity presented by the long series of dialogues to rest my eyes because they felt like the were bleeding as much as Alexander’s did by the end of this epically boring romp. 3 hours of my life are missing and I am left wondering simply ‘why’?

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.